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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive), it discloses that availability is plan-gated, that failure returns an error naming the plan, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the first two sentences are redundant – 'Viewer and slide analytics for a deck' and 'Returns the viewer and slide analytics ... for one deck' say the same thing, wasting a sentence.

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, single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers return content, access requirements, and the plan-gating failure mode. Little 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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents presentation_id and its source (list_presentations). The description adds only 'for one deck' which roughly restates the singular scope; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Viewer and slide analytics for a deck') and clarifies the scope is one deck. It does not name or differentiate against siblings (e.g., get_slides), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'analytics ... shows for one deck.' There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, though the plan-availability caveat is a useful precondition for invoking it.

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