get_brand_voice_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the call returns (a ready-to-use system prompt) and how it is meant to be applied, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown voice ID.

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 verb and resource, with the purpose clause appended after an em-dash. No redundant or filler wording.

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 single-parameter, idempotent read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The only minor gap is behavior on an invalid or missing voice ID.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented with a cross-reference to get_brand_voices. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the ready-to-use system prompt for a brand voice'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling get_brand_voices that enumerates voices. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that sibling in the description text (the pointer to get_brand_voices lives only in the schema), so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: apply the returned prompt when writing posts so content matches the user's tone. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the intended invocation context is unambiguous.

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