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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered without the description. The description adds useful behavioral context — clones include their consent record — but says nothing about lookup failure behavior or what fields the non-clone case returns.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the retrieval scope leads. It is slightly terse — the second sentence is fragmentary — but every clause carries information the schema and annotations do not.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the input formats and the notable clone/consent behavior. Adequate for calling it correctly, with only minor gaps around error cases.

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 0% for the single voiceId parameter, so the schema gives the agent nothing beyond the string type. The description compensates by enumerating the three accepted identifier forms (our id, ElevenLabs id, premade alias), which is exactly the meaning the schema is missing.

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 resource and scope: 'One voice' retrieved singularly, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_voices that returns many. It names the accepted identifier forms (our id, ElevenLabs id, alias) so the agent knows what this fetches, though it never names the sibling it contrasts with explicitly.

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 implied by 'One voice' — fetch a single voice rather than a list — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named (e.g., 'use list_voices to browse, use get_voice_consent_statement for consent details'). The agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names.

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