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

Annotations establish the write/non-idempotent/openWorld=false profile, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: ~40-90s runtime, ~2 Metodic credits, and that output is both shown as a chat slide viewer and persisted to the session. It does not mention that re-calling may produce a duplicate deck despite idempotentHint=false.

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 purpose and deck scope, then cost/latency facts. The long mid-sentence enumeration of deck sections is informative but heavier than needed; a small amount could be trimmed without losing routing value.

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 correctly covers the return/delivery model (chat slide viewer plus saved to session) and the cost/time budget, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this single-parameter tool correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (session_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond 'the session's SLIDE DECK', which is the correct baseline for full schema coverage.

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 (generate) and resource (slide deck) and enumerates the exact deck contents (opening, journey, per-activity chapter, timer, breaks, questions, closing), which cleanly separates it from siblings like generate_handout, generate_worksheet, generate_canvas and generate_cards.

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 makes clear this is the full-deck generator ('One call makes the whole deck') and warns of cost/latency, implying it is the heavyweight option, but it never explicitly says when to pick it over generate_handout or generate_document, nor any when-not condition.

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