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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: entries are tenant-scoped, they do not confer generation rights, and pagination is stable-ID cursor with a default of 50 and cap of 100. It does not say what happens on an expired or invalid cursor, or the sort order.

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?

Three tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded, then the authority caveat, then pagination limits. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what this returns and what it does not authorize) comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and pagination mechanics are covered. For a simple read-only two-parameter list tool this is nearly complete; only ordering and cursor-expiry behavior are left unstated.

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 must compensate. It does explain that the cursor is a stable ID cursor (adding semantics beyond the UUID pattern) and restates the limit default/maximum, but it does not say the cursor comes from a prior response, that it is opaque, or how to detect the last page. Partial compensation for two undocumented parameters.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Read configured voices available to this tenant.' The resource name distinguishes it from sibling catalogs (fonts, languages, models, music, transitions) without needing the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the resource (browse voices provisioned for the tenant), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative. The line 'Catalog entries do not grant generation authority' is a semantic caveat about what the data means, not a selection rule.

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