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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail of 'Bulk support: accepts project_ids for batched execution' and clarifies that chapters belong to a Studio project. However, it does not disclose pagination, response format, or any rate limits. This is similar to the get_calls calibration example, where annotations lower the bar and the description adds some but not rich 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and wastes no words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second adds the key bulk feature. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and one undocumented parameter (account). The description covers the return type ('Returns a list...') and highlights bulk support, but it leaves ambiguity about how batched responses are structured and what the 'account' parameter means. Given the low schema coverage and missing output schema, a bit more detail would be needed for full completeness, but the core functionality is adequately conveyed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mentioning 'project_ids for batched execution' and implying project_id identifies the Studio project. However, the 'account' parameter is completely unexplained, and the description does not clarify the exact relationship between project_id and project_ids (e.g., whether project_ids is an alternative or supplementary). This is below the high bar needed for 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'List Chapters' and 'Returns a list of a Studio project's chapters,' which identifies the tool's specific verb (list), resource (chapters), and scope (Studio project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like elevenlabs_get_chapter_by_id_endpoint or elevenlabs_get_chapter_snapshots, which target single chapters or snapshots.

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 implies usage by stating 'List Chapters' and adds a practical note about bulk execution via project_ids. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives like elevenlabs_get_chapter_by_id_endpoint or elevenlabs_get_projects, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The bulk support note provides some situational guidance but no comparative direction.

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