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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what is actually returned — per-network voice print, rule categories (never say, always mention, opinions, length), confirmed FAQ answers, and real examples — which goes beyond what the annotations say. It does not mention what happens when the voice profile is empty or not yet learned.

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?

A single sentence with a clear lead ('How the person writes') followed by an enumerated payload. The nested parentheticals ('overall and per network', the rule list) are dense but every item carries meaning for an agent deciding whether the returned data suffices. Slightly heavy nesting keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return contents, and it does so in detail, which is sufficient for a no-param read tool. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty/uninitialized voice profile) and rough return shape, which are minor for this complexity level.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options and simply defines the payload.

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 names the resource precisely — the person's writing voice, including voice print (overall and per network), rules, confirmed FAQ answers, and real reply examples — which distinguishes it from siblings like get_profile or get_analytics_summary that never return voice data. The verb is implicit (the title supplies 'Get'), so it is a content inventory rather than a stated action, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 a clear use context: 'for writing captions and replies that sound like them', which tells the agent to consult this before composing content via create_post or send_reply. It does not explicitly name those alternative tools or state when not to call it (e.g., when no voice has been learned), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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