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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a metadata call with no credit consumption, implying no side effects, and returns speaker IDs. While it doesn't detail permissions or rate limits, for a read-only list operation this is sufficient context.

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?

The description is concise, with a front-loaded purpose sentence, a return-value example, and a behavioral note. Three short sentences with no wasted words.

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 simple list tool with fully documented parameters, this description covers purpose, return format via example, and cost behavior. It also connects to synthesize_speech, providing orchestration context. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear example of what is returned.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only provides example speaker values that indirectly relate to the dialect parameter. No significant extra meaning is added.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'available Kurdish text-to-speech voices', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like synthesize_speech and list_dialects. It also provides example speaker IDs (sorani_1, kurmanji_236), making the tool's output unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states that the output 'speaker IDs' are 'to use with synthesize_speech', giving clear context for when to call this tool. The phrase 'Free metadata call — no credits consumed' implies it's a safe low-cost discovery call, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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