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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the important behavioral context of ordering: this must be called before create_presentation, and skipping it leads to missing audio in published documents. This is useful beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict 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 tight sentences accomplish everything: the first states the resource and its scope, the second gives the critical usage directive and consequence. There is no repetition of annotation data or filler, and the key workflow warning is front-loaded into the second sentence with clear emphasis.

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 parameterless, read-only fetch with an output schema available, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be retrieved, when to call the tool, and why it matters. The missing-audio consequence communicates operational importance without requiring the description to duplicate output-schema details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are essentially non-applicable; the schema carries no burden. The description instead clarifies what the fetched contract contains, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing here lowers it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and names the exact resource, the 'html-presentation/v1 authoring contract'. It then enumerates the contract's contents—document structure, the dual landscape/vertical layout rule, and narration markup—making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like get_presentation_analytics or get_presentation_status.

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 description gives an explicit workflow directive: 'Call this BEFORE authoring for create_presentation', reinforced with a concrete consequence for skipping it ('documents written without it publish with missing audio'). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, but the timing and purpose are clearly stated.

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