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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: 'Static reference, no network access' confirms the closed-world behavior and it enumerates exactly what each explanation contains (rationale, bad/good example, fix, platforms, dated sources), which sets expectations for the call.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the verb, resource, and output contents, followed by a short clarifying clause. Every element earns its place with 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the return contents (rationale, examples, fix, platforms, dated sources). For a single-enum-parameter read tool with full annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the enum fully enumerates the 37 valid rule ids, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the concept of 'rule id' and no format or applicability detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Explain one Voice Agent Linter rule by id') and scopes it to a single rule. It is clearly distinguishable from lint_voice_agent (runs a lint) and list_lint_rules (enumerates rules) without consulting their schemas.

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 'by id' framing implies this is the lookup used once a rule id is known, and the enum supplies the valid ids, so discovery needs are covered indirectly. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this versus list_lint_rules or what to do when an id is unknown, leaving usage to inference.

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