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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that an empty Voice is returned if none saved, that it is owner-scoped, and that pricing applies. It does not detail authentication or error states but covers the key behavioral traits for a read operation.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no verbose or redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return behavior, and pricing context.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to details return fields but explains the empty case and structure. It covers ownership and pricing adequately. Minor gap: no mention of error scenarios, but acceptable given output schema exists.

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 50% (npub has a description; dpop_token does not). The description does not add meaning for either parameter, missing a chance to explain dpop_token or clarify usage. With moderate coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 states the tool reads a saved writing Voice, including its components (profile blur and banned chips). It distinguishes from siblings like excalibur_save_voice and mentions owner-scoping and default empty return, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides usage context: owner-scoped and priced via check_price. It implies when to use (when needing to read the Voice) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is clear but lacks direct comparison with other tools.

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