Get speaker notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: returns plain text plus an object id, treats an empty string as 'no notes yet', and hides the notes-page lookup. This tells the agent exactly what to expect from the call.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: return value, lookup simplification, empty-string semantics, and integration with replace_text. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: how to obtain the required id, what the response contains, and what empty results mean. No significant gaps remain.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds value by reinforcing that slide_object_id is the slide id from list_slides—not the notes page id—and explaining why that single id is sufficient because the lookup happens internally. This is a small but useful semantic addition.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource: a slide's speaker notes as plain text, plus the speakerNotesObjectId. It also clarifies that the notes page is hidden and fetched internally, which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like set_speaker_notes and get_page.

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 gives clear context: the caller only needs slide_object_id from list_slides because the notes page is fetched internally, and it notes that replace_text also searches notes text. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use this tool versus set_speaker_notes, but the read/write contrast and the 'only need' guidance make correct routing straightforward.

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