Speakvora

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List,' but does not describe return format, pagination, authentication needs, or any other behavioral trait beyond the resource names.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the verb, resource, and the additional detail of languages spoken.

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-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return content: voices and their languages. It could mention ordering or pagination, but those are minor gaps for such a low-complexity call.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly adds no misleading parameter information.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List Speakvora voices and the languages they speak.' This clearly identifies the tool's output versus siblings like search_phrases and speak, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so it falls short of the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, ordering, or conditions under which listing voices is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says almost nothing behavioral: no pagination behavior for 'limit', no note on language scoping, no indication of what a result contains or how it is used. 'Library phrases play instantly' is the only behavioral morsel, and it is vague marketing phrasing rather than actionable context.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence ('Library phrases play instantly') contributes little beyond atmosphere, so it is efficient but not maximally economical.

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 search tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent learns the intent but not the language parameter's behavior, the limit semantics, or anything about the returned phrases.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'By words' loosely implies free-text matching for 'query', but 'lang' and 'limit' are left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('ready-made phrases in the Speakvora library') with the search key ('by words') stated. It is clearly a distinct operation from list_voices and speak, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'Library phrases play instantly' hints at the nature of the results but does not tell the agent when to choose search_phrases over speak or list_voices.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the output is a URL to generated audio and imposes a content rule (numbers spelled out for non-English), but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, persistence/lifetime of the audio URL, or whether synthesis is billed.

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 short sentences with zero waste; purpose and return value are front-loaded before the formatting caveat.

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?

It correctly explains the return value in the absence of an output schema and gives one correctness rule, but with no annotations the remaining behavioral gaps (permissions, limits, audio longevity) leave the definition only partially complete for a synthesis tool.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents lang and voice values; the description adds one genuine cross-parameter rule (number formatting depends on the chosen language). It does not explain valid voice ids beyond the schema example or note the 500-character text limit.

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 (turn text into speech) plus the useful outcome (returns a URL to the audio). It is clearly distinct from the reporting siblings list_voices and search_phrases, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (auth, quota), and no mention of when to prefer search_phrases or list_voices as a precursor. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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