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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: ambiguous handles come back as handle:null and are exposed via `ambiguousHandles`, id is the key while handle is only a label, org-owned entries carry fewer attributes because they may be real people, and the call is $0. This is exactly the kind of disclosure the annotations cannot provide.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but it is delivered as a single dense run-on paragraph with nested parentheses that is hard to scan. Content is largely relevant, but the structure would benefit from breaking out return shape, references, and filters.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the return shape, and it does: per-item attributes by source, id/handle semantics, the ambiguousHandles edge case, and the scope field. For a four-optional-param listing tool with clear annotations, nothing the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents q, limit, gender and language. The description restates the filters ('language (BCP-47 prefix), gender and q filter the catalogue') but adds little syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and never mentions the `limit` parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('lists voices and presenters/faces that can be named in a piece right now') and immediately scopes what comes back: the organization's own plus the platform catalogue. An agent can distinguish this from list_material, list_referents or list_projects without opening a schema.

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 rather than stated: the entries are 'how a piece names its voice or presenter at creation', which tells the agent the context of use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative sibling named for a similar listing task.

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