Validate deck Markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's added value comes from clarifying that it does not render a file and specifies the type of warnings reported (overflow risk, too many cards, missing titles). This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, and each clause earns its place. The usage hint ('Cheap — use it while drafting') is concise and memorable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description covers the essential facets: what it parses, what it reports, when to use it, and that it avoids rendering. No critical context is missing.

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 the parameter 'markdown' is already fully described as 'The deck source in the True deck Markdown format.' The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Parse deck Markdown'), the resource ('deck Markdown'), and the output ('slide outline plus layout warnings'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on validation, not generation, fetching, or previewing.

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 provides clear usage context, recommending use 'while drafting' and emphasizing the tool is 'Cheap'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a single-purpose validation tool.

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