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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond those hints by specifying result ordering (featured voices first) and what each result contains, though it does not discuss pagination or rate limits.

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 description is two tightly structured sentences with no wasted text. Search scope is front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and a concise summary of return fields and default listing behavior.

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?

Given the full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed for correct invocation: searchable dimensions, lane names, query omission behavior, and result ordering.

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 the schema already documents lane, limit, and query semantics. The description reinforces the searchable concepts and omission behavior but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 ("Search Silvertongue's famous writing voices") and immediately clarifies the searchable dimensions: name, lane, or writing purpose. It also distinguishes the result type from apparent siblings like get_voice, which retrieves a single voice rather than searching across them.

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 clear usage context: search by name, lane, or intended writing function, and explicitly states that omitting the query lists every voice with featured voices first. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as get_voice, but the usage scenario is still easy to infer.

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