Get presentation

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description goes beyond it by disclosing the exact return shape — including speaker notes and element IDs — plus the existence of a raw passthrough mode. It stops short of noting error behavior for a missing or inaccessible presentation, which keeps it off a 5.

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, zero filler, with the returned payload front-loaded and the raw option as a trailing qualifier. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is essential and present, and the raw toggle covers the escape hatch for callers needing full fidelity. Gaps remain around whether the summary is truncated (slide/text limits) and what an invalid ID returns.

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% and both parameters are self-documenting, including where presentationId comes from in the URL. The description only restates the raw flag's effect already conveyed by the schema, adding no new syntax or default guidance, so 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 ('Get a compact summary of a presentation') and enumerates the payload (title, size, slides, object IDs, element IDs, text, speaker notes), which distinguishes it from the narrower get_slide. It never names the sibling it is not, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from the field list.

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 only usage steer is 'Set raw=true for the full Google API response,' which is really a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing says when to prefer this over list_slides or get_slide, or under what circumstances the compact form is insufficient.

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