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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds the report shape (per-issue slide, severity level error/warning/tip, plain message), which is genuinely useful context beyond annotations. It does not discuss cost, limits, or failure modes for malformed input (those live in the schema), keeping it below 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the long defect enumeration earns its place by defining scope. The phrase 'from freedailypro' is vendor noise, and the single dense sentence of checks could be tightened, but there is no filler.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so (JSON or CSV, per-issue slide/severity/message). The only gap is whether an overall pass/fail summary or counts are returned, which an agent might want to know before calling.

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%, so fileBase64 constraints (50 MB, 500 slides, no .ppt, no password protection) and the format enum are already documented. The description only echoes the json/csv output choice, adding no syntax or size guidance beyond the schema — baseline 3 is correct.

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 (check) plus resource (PowerPoint .pptx) with the exact scope of the audit enumerated: alt text, titles, font size, table headers, merged cells, link text, reading order. An agent can distinguish this from pptx_clean, pptx_fonts, or pptx_extract_text without opening any schema.

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 makes the use case clear (auditing an existing deck for accessibility defects) and states 'The check reports only; it changes nothing,' which implicitly routes remediation work elsewhere. It never names a sibling alternative or states an exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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