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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: downloadable formats (PPTX, PDF), a paid-plan gate that yields download_locked with a note, inclusion of slide preview images, and a 7-day link expiry. This is context an agent cannot derive from annotations or schema. It stops short of listing possible status values or failure states.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the conditional return behavior immediately after. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return values, including the locked-download case and link lifetime, which is the critical information for this tool. It is slightly incomplete in not enumerating status values or describing behavior for failed/in-progress jobs.

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 for the single job_id parameter is 0%, so the description must carry meaning, and it only implies that the id refers to a presentation job. It adds no format, origin, or example for job_id, leaving the agent to rely on the bare schema field.

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 and resource: get the status of a presentation job. The return payload (download links, slide previews) is spelled out, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_presentations or create_presentation. It does not explicitly name a sibling it might be confused with, which keeps it from a 5.

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 can infer this is a polling tool for a job created elsewhere (likely create_presentation), and the 'when status is done' clause hints at iteration. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus list_presentations, nor of what to do while status is not 'done'.

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