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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true; the description adds real value beyond them: the 2,000-char ceiling under default normalization, per-job 5P base fee plus normalization skill fee, and the fact that MP3/ASS result structure is unchanged when normalization is off. It does not disclose that this is an async job that must be polled via the tts_jobs_status/result siblings, which is a notable omission.

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 purpose and kept to a few sentences, with the cost/limit caveats following. The bracketed fee formula at the end is slightly clunky but still earns its place as billing 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?

For a 14-parameter async job-submission tool with no output schema, the description omits the return contract (job id) and the polling flow implied by the tts_jobs_status/result siblings. Parameter-level detail is complete via the schema, but the async lifecycle an agent needs to actually consume the tool is missing.

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% and every parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal meaning by tying normalize_text to the 2,000-char limit, but otherwise does not enrich the 14 parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names the resource (ChatGPT 음성/목소리·낭독 스타일) and the operation (전달), so the agent knows this produces ChatGPT TTS output. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from tts_gemini_create or the tts_jobs_create siblings, leaving the caller to infer from the 'ChatGPT' prefix.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus tts_gemini_create, tts_jobs_create, or tts_openai_voices. The description explains defaults (normalization on) and fees but gives no selection guidance or prerequisites for choosing this tool over its alternatives.

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