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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description focuses on what annotations can't cover: sort order, the projected fields, and cursor pagination. It adds genuine value, though it omits page-size behavior and what happens at the end of the result set.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability and ordering first, the disambiguating use case second, pagination last. No filler and nothing buried.

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 return-shape explanation isn't owed, and the safety profile is covered by annotations; the description covers ordering, pagination and selection intent. A brief note on default/max page size would close the remaining gap.

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 50%: `cursor` is documented in the schema and merely restated by the description's "Paginated with `cursor`", while `limit` is undocumented in both places beyond its numeric bounds. Acceptable baseline, but the description does not compensate for the gap by explaining the page-size tradeoff.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Lists the account's presentations") plus ordering ("newest first") and the fields returned. It doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, but the phrase "without giving its ID" functionally separates it from sparka_presentation_get.

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?

"Useful when the user refers to a presentation without giving its ID" gives a concrete trigger condition with an example utterance, which is exactly the kind of routing signal an agent needs. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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