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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — results are ordered most-recent-first — but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether archived/draft presentations are included, which matters for a listing tool.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope and ordering are front-loaded. It is arguably over-terse for a tool with unstated pagination and filter behavior, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a clear read-only annotation set, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is what a caller gets back — there is no output schema and the description does not mention result count, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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%, and the single optional "query" parameter is documented in the schema as matching title or description words. The description adds no filtering semantics of its own (substring vs word match, behavior when omitted), 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lister les présentations du projet") plus an ordering rule ("les plus récentes d'abord"), which is enough to distinguish it from get_presentation, create_presentation, delete_presentation, and rename_presentation. However, it never names a sibling or explains how it differs from adjacent listing tools, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 implied by the verb and the "du projet" scoping, so an agent can guess this is the read path for enumerating presentations. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_presentation for a single item, and no note on prerequisites or the current-project assumption.

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