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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is 'Free', it guarantees existing advert voices are preserved, and it specifies that a missing default should not be substituted or generated automatically. These are valuable behavioral disclosures for a read tool, though it does not describe the return payload.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then adds cost, side-effect guarantee, and missing-value behavior in tight sentences. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, but the description does not explain what the read returns (e.g., a voice ID, settings object, or null). Combined with zero parameter description coverage, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the two required parameters. It only vaguely implies 'actor' and 'actor version' but provides no format, constraints, or meaning for actorId (a UUID) or actorVersion (a 1-200 character string), leaving the schema's patterns and lengths unexplained.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the current default voice for an actor version') and adds scope ('for new work'), which helps an agent understand it is a read of a default voice rather than a bind or save. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g., soclo_actors_voice or soclo_hosted_voices_bind), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'for new work' and the instruction to 'Preserve voices saved in existing adverts' imply when this tool applies versus when not to touch existing data. However, the description never names an alternative tool or explicitly states 'use X instead of Y', leaving the agent to infer the choice among the many hosted_voices and actors voice siblings.

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