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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description need not repeat it. The description adds that the content is a 'complete' reference (so an agent knows it can rely on it as the authoritative vocabulary), but says nothing about size, caching, or whether the payload is large enough to warrant selective use — modest added value above the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no preamble or filler. The long enumeration of covered item kinds ('block types with every prop and its default, allowed values..., colour props, link kinds, fonts, shapes and themes') is justified because it is exactly the tool's coverage promise, though it reads as a somewhat breathless list.

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 and the tool has no inputs, so return-value and argument explanation are legitimately out of scope. For a zero-param read-only reference the description is nearly sufficient; the one gap is that it never signals how this reference is meant to be applied when editing slides.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully described, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly does not invent arguments.

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 precisely what the tool returns: a complete reference of slide block types, their props, defaults, allowed values, ranges, colours, links, fonts, shapes and themes. It is a specific resource ('format reference') with a clear scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with data-returning siblings like get_slide or get_presentation, so an agent must infer that this is the static schema, not a specific deck's content.

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: an agent would reasonably infer 'call this to learn valid block props before add_slide/edit_blocks', but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or which sibling it complements. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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