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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: measurements run in a server-side browser when available and fall back to font-width estimation ("measured": true), and edited slides carry their warnings into mutation responses as "layout_warnings". It stops short of disclosing cost or latency of the browser measurement, which is the main behavioral risk for an agent deciding to call it.

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 warning taxonomy is front-loaded, which is good, but the prose is roundabout and parenthesis-heavy, and the highly situational caveat about text running into bottom padding on unfilled blocks consumes a full sentence. The most decision-relevant fact for an agent - that mutations already attach layout_warnings - is buried at the very end.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the interpretation caveats an agent needs (measured vs. estimated sizes, language tagging, only-visible-content rule). For a read-only diagnostic with full schema coverage this is essentially complete, though it omits any hint about cost or how many slides a range check can handle.

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 coverage is 100%, so slug, slide_ids, from_number and to_number are all documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the relationship or precedence between slide_ids and the number range filters, and the "lang" it mentions is an output attribute of warnings, not an input, so no extra parameter meaning is conveyed.

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 capability: it returns warnings about how presentation slides will look, and enumerates the concrete warning classes ("overflow", "cut", "outside", "overlap") plus per-language reporting. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the visual sibling preview_slides, leaving the agent to infer the distinction between a rendered preview and a diagnostic warning list.

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: the warning taxonomy suggests the tool is for validating layout before export or publish, and the final sentence hints that mutating operations already return layout_warnings. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus preview_slides, and no guidance about when a full check is unnecessary.

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