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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it clarifies the response includes the detected speaker list only if complete, and that bulk execution is supported via voice_ids/sample_ids. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short, scannable, and front-loaded. The only minor inefficiency is the first sentence, 'Retrieve Speaker Separation Status,' largely repeating the meaning of the second sentence.

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 read-only status tool, the description is close to sufficient, but it lacks explicit context about the flow from starting separation and does not fully specify bulk-mode semantics. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the returned speaker list structure would improve completeness.

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 had to compensate. It only explains that voice_ids and sample_ids are used for batched execution; it does not clarify the required singular voice_id/sample_id parameters, the optional account parameter, or the relationship between single and bulk modes. Some meaning is added, but enough gaps remain.

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 names the action ('Retrieve') and the specific resource ('speaker separation status' plus the detected speakers list). In context with sibling tools like elevenlabs_start_speaker_separation, it is immediately distinguishable as the retrieval/status counterpart.

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 use case is implied: this is for retrieving pending/completed speaker separation status. However, the description does not explicitly say when to call it relative to starting separation, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives beyond the inherent 'get status' framing.

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