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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: generates a narrative, returns slide structure with key points, speaker notes, visual hints, and a Q&A bank, and outputs JSON ready for export. No contradictions with 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?

The description is 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output details, usage, and inputs. Every sentence adds value; even the trailing 'Delivered by Sarah...' is a brief signature. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested object, output schema exists), the description covers the main use case, inputs, output format (slide structure, Q&A bank), and when to use. It omits the async parameter but the schema covers it. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters described in the description: company, audience, slideCount, keyFacts; async not described). The description adds semantic value by explaining audience enum values, slideCount ranges (e.g., '12 = standard VC deck'), and that keyFacts are hard facts. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Build a complete investor pitch-deck storyline for a company.' The verb 'build' and resource 'pitch-deck storyline' are specific. Among sibling tools like 'funding_hunter' and 'investor_shortlist', this tool is uniquely focused on creating a deck narrative, not finding funding or investors.

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 description explicitly says 'When to use this tool: the user is preparing a fundraise, a board meeting, or an investor presentation.' This provides clear context for use. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to specific alternatives, but the scenario is well-defined.

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