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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the returned download URL works without a key for one hour (temporal/auth detail), export is restricted to the author (authorization), and each format's fidelity is described. This is meaningful added context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Dense single paragraph with zero filler; the format enumeration carries most of the information load and the permission constraint is placed last. The leading fragment 'A file of one of your presentations:' is slightly awkward as an opener but quickly resolves into specifics.

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?

Covers the essentials for a low-complexity, 2-param tool: output artifact types, the download URL, its expiry, and the caller restriction. With an output schema present there is no obligation to describe return structure, so the remaining gap (error modes) is minor.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's terse 'The kind of file' by explaining what each enum value actually contains and whether it is editable or re-importable. That materially disambiguates the format choice.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('export' a 'presentation') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like import_presentation and get_format by enumerating the three output artifacts it produces. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear selection guidance for the format enum (pptx = editable, zip = site archive re-importable, pdf = viewer-faithful), which is effectively when-to-use guidance for the enum. It also states the authorization prerequisite ('Only the author may export'). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling for related reads, so it falls just short of 5.

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