Worder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds scope information (which topics the documentation covers) but says nothing about the form of the response or limits on what it can answer.

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?

A single sentence enumerating the covered topics, with no filler, preamble, or repetition of the name or annotations. It is appropriately sized for a static informational tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but for a static documentation-lookup tool the enumerated topic list is enough for an agent to decide whether the call will answer its question. A brief note on the return form (e.g., prose documentation) is the only missing element.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, topic-agnostic fetch rather than leaving the agent to guess at 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 names the concrete scope of the resource: Worder itself, voice-actor payment, voice data handling, supported languages, and pricing. That is far more specific than a tautology like 'About Worder'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools such as how_to_order, list_languages, or estimate_cost, whose subject matter overlaps this list.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for general/platform-level questions, in contrast to the operational siblings. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no exclusion of the overlapping topics, and no guidance on when to prefer estimate_cost or list_languages for the same subject.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what is estimated (seconds and USD) and the billing basis (voice's per-second price), though it doesn't discuss approximation or error conditions.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the estimate, duration, cost, voice, and billing basis with no filler. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values; it does so by stating that it returns seconds of audio and USD cost. It omits how to obtain voiceId and any error behavior, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 description ties both parameters to the estimate—script as spoken text and voice as the price basis. However, schema coverage is only 50%, with voiceId undocumented in the schema, and the description does not compensate with format, source, or constraints for voiceId.

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: estimate audio duration and USD cost for a script with a given voice. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling lookup/help tools.

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 as a pre-billing estimate, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this vs. siblings or how to obtain a valid voiceId. With get_voice/search_voices available, the lack of routing is a clear gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value on top by disclosing which fields are returned (actor, price per second, samples, tags, excluded use cases, listen/generate links), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource before the field enumeration. Dense but each enumerated item earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 one-parameter read tool, the definition is nearly self-sufficient: it names the identifier source and the full return payload, compensating for the missing output schema. Only error behavior for an unknown id is left unstated, which is minor.

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% – voiceId is fully documented as 'the voice id from search_voices', including length constraints. The description only adds the redundant phrase 'by id', so the schema carries the load and 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 ('get full public details of one voice by id') and enumerates what that data contains, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The 'one voice by id' scoping implicitly separates it from the list-oriented search_voices, though the sibling is never named.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. obtain the id from search_voices), and does not name any alternative. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the follow-up to a voice search.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content scope (pricing, previews, credits, refund guarantee), but says nothing about the form of the answer (static doc text vs. computed values) or whether it depends on the currently selected voice.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a tight enumeration of covered topics. It is slightly list-heavy, but every item (pricing, previews, credits, refund) tells the agent something concrete about the content.

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 parameterless, non-destructive documentation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and its theme adequately. Minor gap: it doesn't state the answer format or that it is voice-agnostic, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object, so no parameter gap exists.

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 states a concrete deliverable: the steps from a chosen voice to a downloaded audio file, plus the topics covered (pricing, previews, credits, refund guarantee). It is clear this is an informational/how-to resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with procedural siblings like estimate_cost or get_voice.

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 only implied — an agent can infer you'd call this before ordering a paid generation, but there is no stated when-to-use, no ordering relative to estimate_cost or get_voice, and no exclusions. The scope list hints at what questions it answers, which is weak but real guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned fields (counts per language and country variant, catalog link), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or freshness of the counts.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the payload. Slightly dense phrasing ('The languages Worder voices speak') but no wasted text.

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 zero-argument listing tool with a rich annotation set, the description covers the essential return payload. The lack of an output schema is mostly offset, though ordering/pagination behavior remains unstated.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming this is a parameter-free catalog call.

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 states the resource being returned (languages spoken by Worder voices) and its contents, so an agent can tell it targets language metadata rather than voices themselves. It doesn't use a verb like 'list', but the resource is unambiguous and distinguishable from get_voice and search_voices.

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 guidance on when to call this versus search_voices or get_voice, and no mention of it being a no-argument catalog/reference lookup. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: per-word matching and ranking by number of matched words. It also previews returned fields (per-second price, sample links, excluded use cases, listen/generate links).

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action, then matching semantics, then the sibling pointer. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 describing ranking behavior and the key returned artifacts (price, samples, exclusions, links). For a read-only search over three well-documented optional params, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how 'query' is interpreted (each word matched independently, most matches ranked first) and echoing the language facet plus examples. That is meaning beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 precise verb and resource ('Find licensed AI voices on Worder') and enumerates the matchable facets (language, name, accent, delivery tag, actor, sample label). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_languages, so an agent can route without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly points at list_languages as the way to discover supported languages, which is real routing guidance. It does not state when to prefer get_voice over this tool, so no explicit exclusions are given, keeping it short of a 5.

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