get_brand_voices

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 description's burden is lower. It adds that brand voices are tone-of-voice profiles analyzed from the user's content and are scoped to 'the user's' voices, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a short parenthetical that explains the resource. Every phrase earns its place and there is no repetition; it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool whose annotations cover safety, the description gives enough context to know it lists the user's brand voice profiles. It could clarify return ordering/pagination or when to call get_brand_voice_prompt instead, but no output schema exists and complexity is low.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter-level detail because none exist.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List the user's brand voices.' The parenthetical clarifies that these are tone-of-voice profiles analyzed from content, distinguishing it from post/campaign siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_brand_voice_prompt.

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?

Usage is implied as a read-only listing of the authenticated user's brand voices. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention related alternatives such as get_brand_voice_prompt or list_brand_kits.

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