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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the catalog is the authoritative source of IDs ("never invent IDs") and that returned metadata carries language/accent/delivery attributes, which is useful behavioral detail.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and with zero filler. Slightly clipped grammar, but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does sketch the returned metadata fields, which helps. However, with 0% schema coverage it omits the meaning of workspaceId (required) and limit, so an agent lacks full grounding for a 3-parameter call.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the search parameter ("Optional search filters metadata"), leaving limit (1-1000) and the required workspaceId with no added meaning. The coverage gap is only partially bridged.

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 and resource ("Read the actual live-avatar preset voice catalog"), which distinguishes it from the generic list_voices sibling by scoping to live-avatar presets. It is clear, though it never names list_voices explicitly to route the agent.

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?

"Match voice language, accent and delivery from returned metadata; never invent IDs" tells the agent how to consume results, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus list_voices or the live-avatar workflow tools. Usage is implied rather than delineated.

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