ghl_brand_board_list_voices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: it requires a Sub-Account (location) token and the brand-boards/voices.readonly OAuth scope. It does not describe the voice object shape or whether deleted entries are included by default, which keeps 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 operation and its scope, then auth, then pagination guidance – a sensible order. Slight redundancy between the title line and 'Get list of brand voices for a location', and the endpoint/source metadata is low-value for an agent but short.

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 read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, and paging. The only meaningful gap is that it provides no output schema, so the description could have said what a brand voice record contains.

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 schema already carries full meaning for all five parameters including limits and defaults. The description restates limit/offset as pagination controls but adds no syntax, default, or maximum details, and says nothing about the search or deleted filters.

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 states a specific verb and resource (list brand voices) scoped to a location, which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_voice/create_voice/update_voice tools. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 context is implied by the name and by the note that limit/offset page through full result sets, which tells the agent how to use it for large collections. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of ghl_brand_board_get_voice when...' routing, and no statement of when listing is inappropriate.

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