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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by stating that the tool 'Returns null defaultAccountVoice if not configured', which is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior an agent needs to handle gracefully.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core function is stated first, the intended use case is provided in the second sentence, and the null-return edge case is included compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it returns, when to use it, and the null-result condition. It does not describe the exact structure of the returned guide, but 'brand voice & tone guide' is sufficient for an agent to consume it as writing-style guidance.

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?

The only parameter, workspaceId, is fully documented in the schema with a clear description including the note about workspace keys being bound. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but with 100% schema coverage the schema already carries the necessary information. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Returns'), the resource ('brand voice & tone guide'), and the scope ('a workspace's default LinkedIn account'). It also distinguishes this from related voice tools by focusing on the workspace-level default account rather than conversation-level voices. The additional context about using it before generating content drafts reinforces its purpose.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('before generating content drafts'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can identify this as the pre-writing style lookup step. It could be stronger with a direct reference to sibling voice tools like get_conversation_voice.

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