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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: that only the separate notes are returned, not slide content, and that results cover every page or only requested pages. No contradiction with annotations 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?

Three tightly organized paragraphs: purpose first, use cases and exclusions second, return behavior last. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information (read-only, scope boundary) is front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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-only retrieval tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the target resource, the return scope (notes per page), and how to limit to specific pages. Minor omissions like behavior when a slide has no notes or note format are acceptable given the tool's simplicity and supporting annotations.

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%, with all three parameters (design_id, pages, user_intent) already documented, including one-based page numbering and default all-pages behavior. The description's final sentence reinforces the pages semantics ('from every page, or the specified page numbers') but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get presenter notes from an existing Canva presentation') and explicitly differentiates from siblings with 'Not for reading the presentation itself; this only returns the separate notes attached to each slide.' This unambiguously separates it from get-design, get-design-content, and get-design-pages without needing to open their schemas.

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 clear when-to-use scenarios ('reviewing speaker notes, pulling talking points for particular slides, or summarizing notes across a presentation') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for reading the presentation itself'). It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool to use for presentation content, so it misses full 5-level routing, but the boundary is clear.

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