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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a caveat that numeric input does not guarantee precise acoustic control, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not describe the return format or any other behavioral traits.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, a caveat, and a cost tag. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives the gist but remains vague about what '표현 옵션' entails (e.g., specific style or emotion settings) and how the returned data is structured. An agent can infer it is a metadata lookup, but the description could be more explicit about the return content.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not attempt to document any parameters, and the empty schema is consistent.

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 verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) and the resources (expression options and speaker count limits) for Gemini and ChatGPT. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tts_gemini_voices and tts_openai_voices, which list voices rather than options/limits, though the term '표현 옵션' remains somewhat abstract.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The description never mentions that this is a preparatory step before tts_gemini_create or tts_openai_create, nor does it state any prerequisites. Only a caveat about numeric input is provided, which is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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