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

The description adds selection semantics not present in annotations: only approved critical Voices are returned, and filtering by one song is optional. The safety profile is already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description does not need to restate it. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but those are not promised.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the filter and the purpose. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 listing tool with one optional enum parameter and strong annotations, the description covers what it does, why to use it, and when to apply the optional filter. The only minor gap is no explicit note about the output shape, but that is not critical for such a straightforward query.

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 single parameter 'song' is an optional enum, and the schema already fully constrains valid values and optionality. The description adds the 'optionally filtered' framing but does not materially enrich the schema beyond that.

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 action and resource: 'Return approved critical Voices' with an optional song filter. It is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like submit_voice and validate_voice through the 'approved critical' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'so a new critic can answer rather than repeat them' gives clear when-to-use context: call this before writing a new critique to see existing approved critical voices. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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