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 behavioral context beyond them: that the clips are unmodified recordings of your own voice sent as-is, and it enumerates the returned fields despite 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields, then the usage pointer. Slightly long, but each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padding.

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 and no parameters, the description fully compensates by listing the return fields and their meaning, plus cross-referencing the sibling tools where the clip_id is consumed. An agent has everything needed to list and then use a clip.

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?

No parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning to the output key clip_id by explaining what it is for (sending a voice message or referencing an automation step), which is genuine value beyond the empty schema.

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?

Specific verb (Liste) plus resource (bibliothèque de vocaux préenregistrés de votre organisation) and it enumerates the returned fields (clip_id, nom, transcript, durée). An agent can tell it apart from the many write/send siblings immediately.

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?

Explains the purpose of the returned clip_id by routing to two concrete consumers (ficiel_send_media with kind=voice, or voice_clip_id in an automation step), giving clear downstream context. It does not say when NOT to use it versus other list tools, but the read-only scope is unambiguous.

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