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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the permission model ('Anyone who can view the presentation sees all its notes'), which tells the agent results are not scoped to the caller's own authorship.

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 with the return shape front-loaded and the default-filter rule last. No filler, though the include_resolved sentence partially duplicates the schema and could be trimmed or used to say something the schema does not.

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, full parameter coverage and rich annotations, the definition only needs to add the permission/visibility model, which it does. Missing only a note on whether slide_id narrows scope to one slide's threads.

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 all three parameters including slug and slide_id are already documented. The description restates the include_resolved default, which the schema itself already states ('default: only open ones'), adding no new syntax or edge-case meaning.

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 (notes/comment threads on a presentation) and return shape (threads with replies), which lets an agent distinguish it from add_comment, delete_comment and resolve_comment. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the noun phrase plus the title 'Read the notes' to convey retrieval.

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?

The only usage-relevant statement is the default filtering rule ('Without include_resolved only open threads'), which is implied guidance rather than an explicit when-to-use. No exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. use add_comment to write) are given, so sibling selection is inferred from name alone.

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