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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world profile, so the safety bar is covered. The description goes further by detailing the return shape (one section per slide, preserved bold/bullets, empty layout stubs, drawn-marks summary) and characterizing this as the 'cheap' read path, which is useful behavioral context in the absence of an output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return format, then the routing rule, then the citation note. Every sentence carries weight, though the trailing citation sentence is slightly tangential to invocation.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully carries the burden: it describes the return structure, scoping, and its relationship to the sibling viewer. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both boardId and workspace are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, though the citation convention touches on deck identity rather than parameter meaning.

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 precise verb and resource ('Returns a Napkin deck as a markdown outline') and enumerates the content it includes (slide titles, text, layout stubs, drawn marks). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling napkin_slide_view by contrasting what the deck SAYS vs how a slide LOOKS.

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 an explicit routing rule: use this to learn what a deck says, use napkin_slide_view when you need to see how a specific slide looks. Adds a scope note ('Works on any board that has slides') so the agent knows when it is applicable.

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