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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered without help. The description adds the useful visibility semantic ('visible slides', implying hidden slides are excluded) and the partial-fetch strategy, but says nothing about response shape, ordering, or failure behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second gives the scoping tactic. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title.

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, the description does carry the return-value burden and discharges it adequately by naming the content categories (titles, text, chart and table values) instead of raw structure. It is slightly thin on the nested query/params wrapper and on how content is grouped per slide, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Both parameters are already richly documented inside the schema (slideIds explains the 20-id cap, repetition syntax, and ignored ids; id explains the SlideDeck-only restriction and 400 behavior). The description only echoes the slideIds guidance by pointing at a reply's changedSlideIds, adding little meaning beyond the structured field.

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 uses a specific verb+resource framing: it returns 'what a viewer sees on a report's visible slides,' and enumerates the payload (titles, text, chart and table values). That distinguishes it implicitly from metadata-oriented siblings like getReport and media-oriented ones like getReportSlideImages, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

It gives one concrete usage rule — on a long report, pass slideIds for only the slides needed, e.g. a reply's changedSlideIds — which is a real efficiency/scoping guideline. It does not say when to choose getReportContent over getReport, getReportDatasheetData, or getReportSlideImages, so selection guidance against alternatives is left to inference.

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