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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot: the profile's editorial nature ('unofficial studies of public writing technique; the people named did not write or endorse them'), which shapes how an agent should present the content.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: contents first, caveat second. The long enumeration in sentence one is dense but each listed item is informative rather than filler; no redundancy with annotations or schema.

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 an output schema, rich annotations, and a fully documented single parameter, the description needs only to frame purpose and caveats, which it does. The one gap is sibling disambiguation (get_voice vs get_voice_packet), which would be the finishing touch for a retrieval tool with a near-namesake.

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% and the parameter already documents both slug and exact-ID forms, so the description adds nothing about the `voice` argument. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Get one voice's full profile') and then enumerates the actual contents — VOICE.md, sources, observations, handwritten example, licence, attribution — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinct from search_voices (which returns IDs) and get_voice_packet.

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?

Using it after a search is implied by the schema's mention of an ID 'from search_voices', but the description itself gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never contrasts itself with get_voice_packet, its closest sibling. The agent must infer the choice between the two packet/profile tools.

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