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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description goes further by disclosing a genuine failure mode the annotations cannot express: the analysis is generated only when a deck or founder notes arrive, so empty results are legitimate rather than errors, and `status` must be checked before drawing conclusions.

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 is front-loaded on what the tool returns, then usage, then the empty-result caveat, and every sentence carries information. It is slightly long, with parenthetical glosses ('what stands out') that add a little redundancy, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does by enumerating the analysis sections and mentioning the `status` field. Annotations cover the safety profile and there is only one fully documented parameter, so nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that `slug` identifies the pitch/company. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (the AI reading of a pitch deck) and enumerates exactly what it returns: highlights, key strengths, founding team, market comparables, open questions, and source documents. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_pitch_email or list_pitches, which deal with raw pitch data rather than the existing analysis.

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 states the trigger condition directly: 'Ask for this before doing diligence on a deal, rather than re-reading the deck from scratch,' naming the alternative behavior it replaces. It also gives an explicit when-not clause: a deal with neither a deck nor founder notes has no analysis, so an empty result should be checked against `status` rather than read as a verdict.

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