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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the return is an array indexed by slide ('entry i is the script for slide i') and the range params are 1-indexed and inclusive, which the annotations do not express.

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, front-loaded with the return semantics before the optional filtering detail. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return shape (per-slide array) and the indexing base, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Only the slug parameter and any edge cases (e.g., behavior when a slide has no script) are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for the two optional params ('1-indexed, inclusive' range limiting). It does not explicitly describe slug, though its role is obvious from context, so it falls just short of fully compensating.

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 the deck's per-slide speaker script') and clarifies the resource further with the parenthetical 'teleprompter text'. The entry-i-is-slide-i mapping makes it clearly distinct from the set_script sibling and from get_deck.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_deck or set_script, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is indirect, via the optional range parameters, so usage must be inferred from the name and sibling set.

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