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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns only verified active voices, uses opaque selectors, and does not expose raw upstream IDs. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but with annotations present this is strong added context.

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 tightly written sentence with no wasted words. The key scope and privacy constraints are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool has rich annotations and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers purpose, output privacy, and scope for a simple one-parameter tool. It could be stronger by clarifying its relationship to the Canvas private-voices sibling.

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 0% and the single required project_id parameter has no schema description. The description partially compensates by saying it applies to an owned Canvas project, which gives semantic meaning to project_id. It does not explain how to obtain or validate the project ID beyond the schema's hex pattern.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: list private voice names and selectors. Scope is limited to an owned Canvas project. It does not distinguish itself from sibling aimixer_canvas_private_voices, so it misses one point for sibling differentiation.

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 'for an owned Canvas project' gives implied usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer this over related sibling tools such as aimixer_canvas_private_voices.

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