slides_get_presentation

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. The description adds useful context that the response includes slide text and structure, but it does not go into error behavior, authentication needs, or additional output details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It puts the verb and resource first, and every phrase adds useful meaning.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter, the description covers what it operates on and what the response contains. Between the annotations covering safety and the schema covering the parameter, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the single parameter is already fully documented. The description's phrase 'by ID' restates the parameter's role without adding extra format, constraints, or usage nuance.

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 states a specific action ('Read') and a specific resource ('Google Slides presentation by ID'), and clarifies what is included in the result ('slide text and structure'). This clearly distinguishes it from the classroom and drive sibling tools, none of which read Slides presentations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. The resource name and description imply this is the tool for reading a Slides presentation by ID, but no exclusions or comparison to siblings are provided.

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