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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the output shape (one section per slide, presentation order), the presence of empty layout stubs, and the `[[board:ID]]` citation requirement. It omits return-size/pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences ordered by importance: what it returns, when to use it vs the alternative, then the citation convention. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

A read-only tool with no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, which it does thoroughly (sections, titles, formatting, stubs, marks summary). The only gap is absence of any note on sizing or ordering guarantees beyond 'presentation order', which is minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `boardId` and `workspace` are documented in the schema itself, including the workspace-default nuance for personal tokens. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a Napkin deck as a markdown outline') and enumerates the exact content the outline contains (slide titles, bold+bullets, empty layout stubs, drawn-mark summary). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling `napkin_slide_view`, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'the cheap way to know what a deck SAYS; use `napkin_slide_view` when you need to see how a specific slide LOOKS.' Also states the applicability precondition ('Works on any board that has slides') and the citation convention. Nothing is left to inference.

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