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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, and the description adds genuinely new context by naming the fields returned (id, name, gender, age, description, preview URL) even though no output schema exists. It omits any note on result size or pagination, keeping it below a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one integration detail that matters. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and the single optional parameter is documented at 100% in the schema. Coverage is strong for a simple read tool; only pagination/result-size behavior is unaddressed.

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 100%, so the 'search' parameter is fully documented in the schema with matching examples ('british', 'female'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List the voices an AI agent can speak with') and further fixes the scope by enumerating what each voice record contains (id, name, gender, age, description, preview URL). No sibling tool lists voices, so there is nothing to confuse it with, and it references manage_ai_agent to anchor its role.

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?

Gives clear downstream context: 'Pass a voice_id to manage_ai_agent (set_voice) to use one,' which tells the agent this is the lookup/prerequisite step. It stops short of explicit when-not or alternative-selection guidance, but there is no competing voice-listing tool to exclude.

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