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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: full texts for a single format versus a short preview of all formats when format is omitted, and that the call consumes no credits. It does not mention ordering, truncation limits, or error behavior for an unsupported format, so it falls just short of exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then routing guidance, then return shape and cost. The opening sentence is long, carrying a parenthetical format list and a four-way provenance list, but every clause conveys information an agent needs; no filler sentences.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (full text vs. preview), what it costs (no credits), where the data comes from, and which siblings to prefer. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the enum is self-documenting, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns more by explaining the semantic effect of omitting the optional format parameter (preview of every format rather than full texts), which the schema does not convey.

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 ('Shows the voice examples and calls to action the writer imitates') and enumerates the supported formats, plus the provenance dimension (creator-written, imported, edited, starter text). It also explicitly disambiguates from get_creator_profile, which covers name, bio and niche.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('Use it before update_voice_examples or import_voice_from_posts') and names the sibling to use instead for a different need (get_creator_profile). Both the alternative and the condition that selects it are spelled out.

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