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

The description adds valuable behavioral nuances beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the agent is told it cannot see images and must rely on text descriptions, and it discloses that only some documents have deep dives. This directly informs the agent's expectations and handling.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, return content, usage context, and a caveat. It is well-structured with the most critical information front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return fields (slide name, description, preview URL, deep link) and the practical note about using text descriptions. It also covers the preconditions (only some docs have deep dives) and how to check them, making it complete for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for content_id ('A document content_id from search_content, e.g. "doc-1234"'). The tool description simply repeats this format ('a "doc-<n>" content_id') without adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Slide-by-slide preview of a Flevy document' and lists exactly what it returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on slide-level content rather than document or topic details.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when a user wants to know what is inside a specific presentation before purchasing, or to reference an individual slide.' It also points to an alternative tool, get_content_details, for checking whether a deep dive exists.

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