marketing_get_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the content but does not disclose whether the tool has any side effects, permissions, or limits. For a read-only informational tool, the lack of explicit safe-read disclosure is a gap, but the content description is minimal.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('Brand voice: the 12 archetypes...') and ends with a clear usage instruction.

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 simple reference tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the content. It could mention the format or additional context, but it is sufficient for its intended use.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to compensate for missing param details. The baseline is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (archetypes, tone dimensions).

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 clearly states the tool provides brand voice archetypes (Mark & Pearson) and tone dimensions (Nielsen Norman), with the directive 'Use to set how the brand sounds.' It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like marketing_get_voice_of_customer or marketing_get_brand_strategy.

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 only gives a vague usage directive ('Use to set how the brand sounds') without explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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