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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the per-slide 'version' should be passed back as 'base_version' when changing a slide, and the response carries the presentation 'version' and 'slides_total' — meaningful for optimistic-concurrency editing.

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 with what is returned, then parameter and version semantics. It is dense and reads as one long dash-separated sentence, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs; little is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, yet it usefully flags version and slides_total. All five parameters are covered and the editing/version workflow is explained, leaving only alternative-tool routing unaddressed.

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. The description adds meaning the schema does not: from_number/to_number are 1-based and inclusive, and texts_only yields html/tr/code block text with 'no geometry', clarifying what is dropped. That is genuine added value over the schema text.

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+resource (get slides) plus scope: a subset of a larger presentation with blocks containing ids and complete props. The partial-retrieval framing implicitly contrasts with whole-presentation reads, but no sibling (get_slide, read_presentation, preview_slides) is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It does give a use-case cue for texts_only ('for reading, checking or translating') and explains the numbering/ids selection, which is useful. However there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance — nothing tells the agent when to pick this over get_slide or read_presentation.

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