read_speaker_notes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the non-obvious mechanism (full-deck export, cached by revision, parsed from OOXML because Office.js has no notes API) and the return format (plain text per slide). It doesn't say how slides without notes are represented, whether the export requires a saved deck, or how stale the revision cache can be.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then the mechanism, then the return type. The OOXML/Office.js sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining why a full-deck export is involved. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's 'returns plain text per slide' is the only return-value signal and it is present. Parameters are fully covered by the schema. Gaps are minor: ordering of results, handling of empty notes, and performance implications of the deck export.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the slideRange syntax and the optional-when-single-presentation rule for presentationId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 (read) and resource (speaker notes from slides), and rounds it out with the return shape (plain text per slide). It is distinguishable from edit_speaker_notes and read_deck_text by name and content, though the description never explicitly names those siblings.

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 only implied — you call it when you need notes text — with no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternatives named (e.g., read_deck_text for general text, edit_speaker_notes for writing). An agent can infer the case, but nothing steers it.

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