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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations lack: the conditional redaction of correct answers and the inclusion of live-session and recent-session data, which matters for privacy/decision-making. It doesn't discuss errors or behavior when no live session exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by when to use it. The enumeration of returned sections is dense but every element is informative rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value enumeration is technically redundant, but the usage workflow and include_answers behavior make the definition callable as-is. Minor gap: no mention of what happens for an invalid or missing presentation_id.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it fully explains the only non-obvious parameter — include_answers defaults to true and suppresses correct answers when false. presentation_id is only implied via the save workflow wording, but its name and the schema pattern make it self-evident.

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 ("Returns one presentation") and enumerates what the single record contains, which cleanly separates it from the sibling sparka_presentation_list. An agent can tell it is a single-record fetch without opening the schema.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases and names the follow-up sibling (sparka_presentation_save with the same presentation_id) for the edit workflow. It does not explicitly contrast against sparka_presentation_list or sparka_results_get, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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