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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, non-open-world operation, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely new context by naming the fields returned (title, format, photo, measurer findings), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior for an invalid or missing document_id.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key action appears first. Minor debit for the unexplained jargon 'the measurer', which costs a few words of decoding.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential shape of the response. It is nearly complete, with only the unexplained 'measurer' term and absent ordering/pagination hints preventing a top score.

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?

There is a single parameter fully documented in the schema, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description never references document_id or clarifies which document it must identify, adding nothing beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists the deck's slides') and even previews the returned fields (title, format, photo, measurer findings). The plural 'slides' implicitly separates it from deck_read_slide, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Listing implies a discovery/enumeration use case before drilling into an individual slide with deck_read_slide, but the description never states when to call this instead of that sibling or any prerequisites beyond the required document_id. Usage is implied only.

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