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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it is free, uses one embedding, explains calibrated vs raw confidence semantics, and documents the source field and candidate margin. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 with the core purpose and workflow, but the second half is a dense run-on of metric definitions. Each detail is useful, but the structure could be clearer with bullets or shorter sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly takes on the burden of explaining the verdict fields, confidence semantics, sources, and margins. It covers the important return values and next step, but the unexplained `top` parameter and somewhat unstructured metrics leave a small completeness gap.

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?

The description adds useful context for brief ('send a short brief') and the schema already documents escalate and variant_policy well. However, the `top` parameter has no description in the schema or the tool description, and schema coverage is only 50%, so a meaningful parameter remains unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Plan a PowerPoint slide before rendering' and enumerates concrete outputs (ranked candidates, route, input, next_action). It distinguishes itself from create_slide by explicitly saying 'before rendering' and instructing the agent to call create_slide afterward.

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 description gives clear usage context: use this to plan before rendering, then call create_slide with the chosen form/variant. It also clarifies cost behavior and the escalate tradeoff. It does not explicitly state when to skip planning and go straight to create_slide, so it is not a full 5.

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