Read the coach's voice fingerprint

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by declaring the data sensitivity (redacted), the required scopes, and that no corpus text is exposed. It also clarifies that an idempotency key is not required, which usefully explains what the caller must supply beyond the annotation's idempotentHint.

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-loads what the tool reads and what it deliberately excludes ('No corpus text') in the first two clauses, then tucks the operational metadata (operation, scopes, workspace override) afterward. No redundant restatement of the title or schema; every sentence carries information.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return shape, the description only needs to disambiguate scope and inputs, which it does via the corpus exclusion and workspace-override note. It is nearly complete, missing only an explicit pointer to when a caller should choose this versus the corpus/profile siblings.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains that these parameters override a default workspace configured by the environment. That default-workspace semantics is not in the schema field text, so it genuinely extends parameter understanding.

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 ('Read a non-verbatim voice-fingerprint summary') and names exactly what it returns: version, example count, last refresh. The phrase 'No corpus text' differentiates it from the sibling luca_voice_corpus without needing to open either schema, so an agent can pick the right one.

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 workspace override instruction ('Use workspaceId or workspaceSlug to override the default workspace configured by environment') gives useful invocation context, and 'No corpus text' hints at when to prefer it over luca_voice_corpus. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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