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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's main added value is disclosing the return shape (slug, title, slide count), but it says nothing about ordering, default limit behavior, or whether results are paginated.

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 tight sentences with zero padding; the return fields are front-loaded before the optional parameters. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields. It remains slightly incomplete on ordering, default limit when omitted, and whether a total count or truncation indicator exists — minor gaps for a simple read-only list tool.

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 parameters are already documented (limit = max decks, query = case-insensitive title filter). The description restates both with a matching example, adding semantic confirmation but no new syntax, defaults, or edge-case behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Lists the presentation decks in this Aitho account') and even enumerates the returned fields (slug, title, slide count), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as aitho_list_talks or 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?

Usage is only implied — the agent infers this is the enumeration tool and get_deck is the single-deck counterpart, but the description never says so. The only explicit guidance concerns what the two optional params do, not when to reach for this tool versus a sibling.

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