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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns an empty list for incomplete orders and supports bulk execution via order_ids. These are valuable insights beyond the annotations, though it does not elaborate on response structure or potential rate limits.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately state the purpose and the key behavioral note (empty list for incomplete orders). It adds the bulk support detail without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core operation.

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 that the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps. It does not describe the shape of the returned deliverables, any authentication prerequisites, or the behavior when both order_id and order_ids are provided. The bulk support is mentioned but not elaborated (e.g., maximum count, interaction with order_id). While the tool seems simple, the description could offer more context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only mentions that order_ids enables bulk execution. It does not explain the purpose of account or clarify the relationship between order_id and order_ids (e.g., whether they are exclusive). The lack of parameter explanation makes it hard for an agent to know how to fill these fields correctly.

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 delivered files for a completed order, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like elevenlabs_public_get_order (order metadata) and elevenlabs_public_list_orders (list of orders) by focusing solely on deliverables. The wording is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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 context on when to use this tool—for completed orders—and notes that an empty list is returned otherwise. This gives clear situational guidance without explicitly mentioning alternative tools, but the naming and purpose make the contrast with siblings obvious. It does not state exclusions, but the condition ('returns empty list if not completed') implies when not to use it.

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