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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing exactly what 'full detail' includes, such as tags, preview image URL, parent template options, sibling slides, and related slides.

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?

The description leads with the core purpose and uses a colon to introduce a dense, organized enumeration of return contents. It is longer than minimal but every phrase adds information, and it avoids fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 present, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so at a useful level of detail. It covers the main content categories, the input format, and the source of the slide_id, though it does not describe response structure or pagination.

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 schema already documents the parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating that the numeric ID is preferred and that the slug also works, plus it identifies the source of the ID as search_slides, which helps the agent choose the correct value.

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 a specific resource ('one slide') and a clear action ('get full detail'), then enumerates the distinct contents returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_template and search_slides by explicitly covering slide-specific data plus related template and slide information.

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 tells the agent to take the slide_id from search_slides, giving a clear workflow context and implying this tool is the lookup step after a search. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, which keeps it one step below full exclusion guidance.

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