Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds extra behavioral context by stating 'Cheap (no image render)' and describing the geometry-level readback including overflow, overlap, and sub-legible font flags. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, each earning its place: the first defines exactly what the tool produces, and the second explains the cost/use-case tradeoff and names the alternative. The information is front-loaded and entirely relevant, with no padding or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only inspection tool with one fully documented parameter and a declared output schema, the description covers every piece an agent needs: what it returns (geometry, text, flags), typical usage, and the alternative for a different need. Nothing about the tool's operation is left ambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers the only parameter (presentation_id) 100% with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect the layout of every slide without rendering images.' It clearly states what is inspected (position, size, text, overflow, overlap, font legibility) and explicitly names preview_slides as the sibling for the final visual pass, making it easy to tell apart from the closest alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The text gives explicit guidance: use this tool to catch mechanical layout problems while editing, and use preview_slides for the final visual pass. This is a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use directive that names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.