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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: hidden-slide notes are skipped by default, the call fails on note-free decks, and docx is returned as base64 rather than a file reference. Only the pagination/ordering of 'slide by slide' output is left implicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output formats, then the hidden-slide and error behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations.

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 return-format burden and does so (txt default, md, docx-as-base64). The size/format limits and unsupported .ppt/password-protected cases live in the schema, so omission here is acceptable; only the structure of per-slide output is unstated.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what the 'docx' enum value actually produces (a Word file as base64) and restating the default and includeHidden semantics in prose, which the schema states only tersely.

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 and resource — get speaker notes from a .pptx — with the added scope qualifier 'slide by slide'. It is clearly distinct from pptx_extract_text or pptx_extract_images in substance, though it never names a sibling to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 implied by the resource (you extract notes when you want notes), and the 'errors when the deck has no speaker notes' precondition is useful. But there is no explicit routing to alternatives such as pptx_extract_text for slide body content, so an agent must infer when this is the wrong tool.

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