Read the coach's voice corpus

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond them: which fields always come back and that the writing body is blanked for a redacted-tier key, plus the required scopes and data sensitivity. Pagination/result limits are unstated, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its meaning, then structured operation/scope/behavior lines. Most sentences earn their place; the 'Does not require idempotency' line is near-redundant against the idempotentHint annotation and slightly muddies rather than clarifies, costing it a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still notes the key returned fields and the redaction behavior. Scopes, sensitivity, auth, and workspace override are all covered; only result volume/pagination behavior for the corpus listing is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining what the override actually does ('override the default workspace configured by environment'), which clarifies why an agent might supply either parameter, though it doesn't add format or precedence detail between id and slug.

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 coach's voice corpus') and explains what the corpus is ('the writing every draft is matched against'), plus the fields returned and the redaction rule. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling luca_voice_profile, which appears to be the nearest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied by the definition of the corpus and by the note that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment default. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus luca_voice_profile or any other voice-related sibling, and no when-not guidance.

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