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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'without storing a Voice' and explicitly listing guarantees it does NOT provide (publication authorization, duplicate/rate-limit/reply checks). This aligns with the annotations and gives an agent important behavioral caveats.

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?

Three terse, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core behavior and key exclusions are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. The title also reinforces the purpose without redundancy.

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 adequately covers the tool's safety profile, purpose, and high-level output ('actionable content issues'), but given no output schema and zero parameter documentation, it is incomplete for an agent that needs to construct a valid call. The five parameters and their constraints are not explained beyond the schema's raw type definitions. It is a functional minimum but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. The phrase 'the same three fields used by leave_quick_voice' implies which three fields but never names them, and there is no explanation of the optional model or reply_to parameters. No parameter-level meaning is provided, making this a significant gap.

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 ('Validate'), a concrete resource ('the same three fields used by leave_quick_voice'), and a clear outcome ('Returns actionable content issues without storing a Voice'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from publishing-related siblings by noting it does not grant publication authorization. This is a crisp, differentiated purpose statement.

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 clearly positions this tool as a pre-publication check tied to leave_quick_voice, and gives explicit exclusions: it does not grant publication authorization nor guarantee duplicate/rate-limit/reply checks. However, it does not directly contrast with validate_voice or submit_voice, leaving some ambiguity about when the full validation path should be used instead. Overall, usage context is clear with meaningful exclusions.

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