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.