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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the call blocks until the file is built, with a stated ceiling of about 2 minutes, and it returns a download URL rather than the file itself. The paid-plan constraint is a genuine gating fact the annotations do not carry. It does not say whether the URL expires or what happens if the build exceeds the wait.

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 with no filler. The action and formats lead, followed by execution behavior, with the plan restriction last as a gate.

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 correctly discloses the return value (a download URL), the blocking wait, and the plan restriction, which is enough to invoke the tool confidently. Minor gaps remain around timeout failure behavior and URL lifetime for a long-running export.

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% and the format enum is already self-documenting in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes the format choices and adds only the implicit constraint that deckId should reference a completed deck.

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 (export) plus resource (a ready deck) plus the three concrete output formats. It is unambiguous against siblings like genppt_create_deck, genppt_generate_slides and genppt_get_deck, since the word 'ready' makes clear this only packages an existing, finished deck.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: the deck must be ready, and the operation is limited to paid plans. It stops short of routing a free-plan agent to genppt_upgrade_plan or saying what to do when a deck is not yet generated, so the when-not path is implied rather than stated.

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