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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: embedUrl expires after 1 hour and editUrl must be opened in a separate window. It does not say whether other links expire or what happens on an invalid/stale id, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the return payload and annotates each field inline, with no filler. The parenthetical stacking makes it slightly run-on, but every clause carries information about a distinct output URL.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so by naming all four URLs and their purposes, plus the 1-hour TTL. It is complete enough for an agent to know what it will get back and how to use each link; only error/staleness behavior is unaddressed.

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 is 100% and the single 'id' parameter already documents that it comes from create_presentation or list_presentations. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates exactly what is produced (embedUrl, openPath, presentUrl, editUrl) for a presentation, which is more specific than the name alone and separates it from siblings like get_presentation or export_presentation. It omits an explicit verb such as 'get'/'retrieve', so the action has to be inferred from 'Liens d'une présentation', but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than get_presentation, export_presentation, open_in_outil or presentation_job, and no prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent guidance is embedded in the returned fields (open editUrl in a new window), not in when-to-use terms.

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