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

The description discloses 'Read-only list,' which is a useful behavioral signal especially since no annotations are provided. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or return format, but for a simple read-only listing tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only note adds useful behavioral context without 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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the basic resource and read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly define what 'id' refers to or describe the shape of the returned list, so an agent may still need to infer details from the tool name.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The text implies the required 'id' refers to an agent, since it describes presentations as hosted by an agent. It does not explicitly state that 'id' is the agent id, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'list' presentations attached to the agent. The title reinforces this. It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list-like 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 phrase 'Each agent can host one or more interactive presentations' implies this tool is used when you need to retrieve presentations belonging to a particular agent. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives among the many listing tools.

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