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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns relevance-ranked results and specifies the exact fields searched (name, headline, description, slide titles/tags) plus the return fields (page URL, cover image, slide count, cart URL). This adds context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits.

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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, the optional filter is mentioned, the usage guidance is explicit, and the alternative is named. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple search with 3 well-documented parameters. The description covers the search fields, the optional category filter, the return fields, and the integration with get_template. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains return values. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the search scope (name, headline, description, and titles/tags of slides) and by clarifying the default limit (10) and max (25) already in the schema but reinforced. This is beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource (PPT Depot's catalog of consulting-grade PowerPoint template decks), and explicitly differentiates from search_slides by saying 'For individual slides or frameworks... use search_slides.' The scope is clear and distinct from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this first to find a template_id for get_template.' It also names the alternative tool (search_slides) and the condition for choosing it. Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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