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.