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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact beyond them – results are restricted to decks owned by the authenticated agency – but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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 sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero redundant restatement of the title or schema. Every clause carries information.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the coverage is nearly complete. The only gap is any hint about paginating through large deck sets, which matters given the cursor parameter.

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% (limit and cursor are both documented in the schema, including cursor's 'next_cursor from the previous page' semantics), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('pitch decks') plus an explicit access scope ('owned by the authenticated agency'). It also names the sibling tools that consume the returned IDs (deck_get, deck_update), so an agent can tell what this tool is for and what it feeds without opening other 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 phrase 'with the deck IDs accepted by deck_get and deck_update' effectively states when to use this tool: as the discovery step feeding deck reads/updates. It stops short of an explicit when-not or an alternative (e.g., no guidance on filtering or on whether other list tools exist), but the context is unambiguous.

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