ghl_brand_board_get_voice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the endpoint version. It does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. Therefore, it adds no value beyond annotations.

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 short (3 sentences) but contains a redundant first line that repeats the title from annotations. While not verbose, the redundancy reduces efficiency. It is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 retrieval tool with a well-defined schema and annotations, the description is largely adequate. However, it could mention that it returns a brand voice object, or provide any caveats. Given the lack of output schema, the agent might benefit from more details. Still, it is sufficient for basic 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 provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description does not add any additional explanation or context for the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Get a brand voice by ID', clearly indicating the verb (Get) and resource (brand voice). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_voices (which lists multiple) and get_by_id (which gets the board, not voice). The inclusion of the endpoint further clarifies the operation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_voices for retrieving all voices, or create_voice for creating). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given. Usage is only implied by the verb and resource.

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