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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The value-added content is the approval gate — unapproved versions exist but must not be cited or sent — and the disclosure that the response includes cross-checked discrepancies against the memo, which is genuine behavioral context. Missing: whether the call fails or returns a draft when no approved version exists.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its contents before the policy constraint. Every clause carries information. The opening fragment 'The deck preset' is slightly elliptical, and trailing 'Read-only' is redundant against the annotations, which keeps it off 5.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to frame what comes back and any policy caveats — it does both (contents enumerated, approval gate stated, discrepancy flag called out). The remaining gap is the companyId/relationshipId selection logic, which is left to the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The phrase 'or one firm's variant' hints that relationshipId scopes the response to a single investor's tailored version, but the description never maps companyId vs relationshipId explicitly or says what happens when relationshipId is omitted. It adds a useful but incomplete gloss on the schema.

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 names the resource precisely: a deck preset (or a single firm's variant), its versions, slides and grounding, plus figures that disagree with the memo. That is far more specific than a restatement of 'Get Deck' and it distinguishes the artifact from fundraising_get_memo and fundraising_export_deck by content. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Only an approved version may be cited or sent' gives a real policy constraint on downstream use of the returned data. But it never says when to call this versus fundraising_propose_deck_version, fundraising_approve_deck_version or fundraising_get_deck_resonance, so an agent must infer the routing. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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