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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is disclosing what comes back — title, slide count, share link, editor link — which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting behavior for a missing or invalid id, so it isn't fully complete.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than an action statement, so it isn't front-loaded with what the tool does. Brevity has come at the cost of specification rather than from tight editing.

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 one parameter, no output schema and a simple read annotation, this is a low-complexity tool, and the description does cover the return payload. However, the required id is left entirely unexplained and there is no guidance on when to reach for this versus the per-surface readers, leaving gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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?

The single required parameter document_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it — no format, no indication of whether ids are shared across decks, landing pages and ad sets, no example. The description must compensate for the empty schema here and does not.

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 names the resource and enumerates its fields ('a deck, landing page or ad set: its title, slide count, share link and editor link'), but it never states the verb — retrieval by id — leaving the action to be inferred from the tool name. It does implicitly distinguish the tool from list_documents by framing it as a single-document view, but a reader has to supply that contrast themselves.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this to inspect a document before editing, nor how it relates to siblings like list_documents, deck_read_slide, landing_read_page, or ads_look_at. The only hint of scope is the enumeration of document types, which implies it works across all three but doesn't say when each type applies.

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