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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: results are bounded, text is a short *untrusted* preview (a useful prompt-injection caveat), and audio is not retrievable here without separate authorization.

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 the scope and the untrusted-preview caveat front-loaded; no filler and no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is the filter/pagination story (status values, pageSize limits), which is the main thing an agent needs beyond the bare call signature.

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 0% and neither parameter is addressed: the status enum (pending/processing/completed/failed) and pageSize (1-50, default 25) are undocumented in both schema and description. 'Bounded' hints at a result cap but never explains the pageSize knob or how status filtering changes results, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (lists) and resource (text-to-speech history) plus scope (bounded, connected tenant), which cleanly separates it from synthesize_speech, get_tts_audio and list_tts_voices. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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 rather than stated: this is the browse/history tool, and the clause 'audio delivery remains private and separately authorized' softly points an agent elsewhere for audio. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of how it relates to get_tts_audio or get_job_status for tracking a synthesis.

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