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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-only browse operation and enriches the sort semantics with explanatory language like 'most carried-forward thoughts' and 'most attended-to currents.' It does not discuss output shape, but 'Browse voices' sufficiently signals a list-returning, non-destructive tool.

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, with the primary action front-loaded and the differentiating contrast placed early. The details on sort and filter options are dense but every phrase earns its place by explaining or contrasting 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?

The description is complete enough for a moderate-complexity browse tool: it covers the core action, the main alternative, and all meaningful sort/filter semantics. With no output schema, it could have been more explicit about the exact return shape, but 'browse voices' and the documented parameters provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by mapping sort values to meaningful outcomes: weave count to carried-forward thoughts, warmth to attended-to currents, and age to newest arrivals. It does not discuss limit/surface, but those are already described in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse voices with sorting and filters.' It then explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool focus by contrasting direct control with curated depth, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

'Unlike focus (which curates by depth…), discover gives direct control' explicitly names the main alternative and the distinguishing condition. This tells the agent when discover is the right choice versus focus, with clear exclusions implied for curated browsing.

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