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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot: per-role visibility scoping and the default filtering of resolved threads. It stops short of stating pagination or ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, all load-bearing, with the scoping rule front-loaded. The first fragment lacks an explicit verb ('Notes on a presentation') which slightly weakens front-loading, but there is no filler.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers visibility plus the resolved-thread filter. The one gap is whether supplying slide_id narrows the listing to a single slide, which an agent would have to infer.

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 description coverage is 100%, so slug, slide_id, and include_resolved are already documented in the schema, including the default-open-threads semantics that the description repeats. The description adds no new parameter syntax or constraint beyond that baseline.

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 names the resource clearly ('notes on a presentation, as threads with replies') and implies a read/list operation, which the title 'Read the notes' reinforces. It is distinguishable from add_comment/delete_comment/resolve_comment by its read nature, though the listing verb itself is never stated outright.

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 gives conditional context (owner sees all notes; anyone else sees only threads they started) and the meaning of omitting include_resolved, which helps an agent predict results. However, it never says when to call this versus siblings like get_presentation or read_presentation, nor any prerequisites for the required slug.

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