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

Annotations already declare the write-ish safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return payload format and the required user-facing action, though it says nothing about what persisting a pick does downstream or how repeated answers are handled.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action first, then the expected return and user-facing instruction. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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, and the description compensates by describing the progress string's shape and telling the agent to surface it. It does not explain the role of the optional brief_id or the persistence effect of the recorded pick, leaving a small gap for a mutation tool.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description's 'trait + side' phrasing largely mirrors the schema. It adds no format, enum, or source detail beyond what the schema provides, 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: 'Record the author's pick from a voice_probe pair (trait + side).' The link to the sibling voice_probe is explicit, so an agent knows this tool consumes the pairs that voice_probe produces without opening either 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?

The description situates the tool in a workflow (answering a voice_probe pair) and instructs the agent to relay the returned progress line to the user. It does not explicitly state prerequisites such as 'call voice_probe first' or when not to use it, 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.