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 useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what each result includes: public page URL, preview image URL, overview, tags, and parent template. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and search scope, followed by result contents, optional filters, and a routing note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only search tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it explains searchable fields, result fields, optional filters and their sources, and the natural alternative for deeper slide detail. The required query parameter is already documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description and example. The description adds extra value by defining the search scope, naming filter source tools (list_tags, search_templates), and clarifying how query matches against multiple fields. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 ('Search') and scoped resource ('individual slides inside PPT Depot's templates'), enumerates exactly which fields are matched (slide title, overview text, tags, parent template name), and lists what results contain. This clearly differentiates it from template-level or tag-level sibling tools.

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 gives clear context: use for keyword search over slides, optionally filtered by tag_id or template_id. It explicitly routes users to get_slide when a full slide description is needed. It could more explicitly contrast with search_templates, but the scope is unambiguous.

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