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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the agency-ownership scope and the fact that the returned payload includes related roster creators and editable metadata.

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?

A single economical sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the inclusion details. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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, so return-value enumeration is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the description's coverage of auth scope and payload contents, an agent has what it needs, though a tie-breaker against deck_list/campaign_get-style siblings is absent.

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 a single documented deck_id (including its 24-hex pattern and provenance from deck_list). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so this is the baseline 3 where the schema does all the work.

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 ('Return') and resource ('one pitch deck') scoped to 'the authenticated agency', and clarifies what the deck contains (roster creators, editable metadata). The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from deck_list, though no sibling is named outright.

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: fetch a single deck by ID, scoped to the caller's agency. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no comparison against deck_list, and no note that deck_id must come from a listing call (that hint lives only in the schema).

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