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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what information the tool confirms, including consent requirements and retention, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the usage instruction ('Use this before training') and then efficiently lists the key requirement categories. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 requirements tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it, what to expect (formats, limits, consent, outputs, retention, upload workflow), and implicitly distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's informational output rather than inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve RVC training requirements before training. It lists specific content areas (input formats, duration/epoch limits, consent, outputs, retention, upload workflow), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_training_job or start_training that perform actions rather than provide requirements.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this before training an AI voice,' giving clear temporal guidance for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the pre-training context is strong enough to guide selection among the siblings.

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