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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful context: it is free, does not trigger synthesis, does not change any selection, returns absence explicitly, and returns no provider access token. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the structured hints.

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 definition is front-loaded and only two sentences long, with no wasted preamble. The second sentence is dense with internal terminology around host plan import and selectedInput.voices, which slightly reduces clarity despite the efficient length.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers cost, side effects, absence behavior, and a key alternative for a related carrier use case. Since there is no output schema, it would ideally describe the return shape more fully, but the core behavioral context is present.

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 schema already explains that actorId and actorVersion come from soclo_actors_list. The description reinforces that both must refer to an owned actor, but adds no additional format or usage detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'Read the exact saved default voice' for an owned actorId and actorVersion. It also distinguishes the tool from soclo_hosted_voices_autoload by naming that sibling for a different need, the saved actorVoice carrier for host plan import.

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?

It gives clear context for use—free, read-only, no synthesis—and explicitly redirects the host-plan-carrier use case to soclo_hosted_voices_autoload. It does not fully state when not to use this tool or spell out prerequisites beyond ownership.

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