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 the capability of bulk execution (voice_ids, sample_ids, speaker_ids), which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as output format, rate limits, or any post-processing requirements.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes the bulk support detail in a compact way. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently detailed. It does not describe the return format (likely audio data), any constraints on input combinations, or behavior beyond bulk support. An agent would need to infer too much to use this tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain individual parameters (voice_id, sample_id, speaker_id) or their relationships. It only mentions that bulk arrays exist, providing minimal insight. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on what each parameter represents.

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 the tool retrieves separated speaker audio for a specific speaker. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'separated speaker audio' are explicit, and the addition of 'for a specific speaker' clarifies scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like elevenlabs_get_pvc_sample_audio and elevenlabs_get_audio_from_sample.

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 (when you need separated speaker audio) but does not provide explicit context on when to prefer this over alternative tools or any exclusions. It mentions bulk support but does not explain prerequisite actions like running speaker separation first. No alternative tools are named.

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