My friends describe me completely differently from how my results came out. Who is right?

Both, on different traits, and the pattern is regular enough to be useful rather than confusing.

Self and observer ratings agree moderately — not badly, not well. Where they diverge is predictable. You have access to your internal states: what you intended, what you felt, what you suppressed. Your friends have access to something you cannot see, which is how you actually land. For traits that are largely about visible behaviour toward other people — warmth, assertiveness, how you come across — observer ratings tend to predict outcomes better than self-ratings, and they agree with each other more than either agrees with you. For internal traits like anxiety or rumination, your own report is the better source, because much of what is being measured is invisible from outside.

Warmth is squarely in the first category, and two independent friends converging is a meaningful signal. The most likely reading of your situation: you behave warmly and do not experience yourself as warm. That happens when the warmth is effortful — you are doing it deliberately rather than feeling it arise — and the effort makes it feel like performance from the inside while looking like the real thing from outside. It also happens when someone rates themselves against an internal standard rather than against other people, which self-report items invite.

What the disagreement is actually telling you is more specific than either rating: something visible to others is not visible to you. Which is worth more than resolving the question. The concrete next step, if you want it, is to ask one of them what specifically they were thinking of. "You always notice when someone goes quiet" is a behaviour you can check against the score, and it is a much better test than deciding whose impression to trust.