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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds that it returns raw text without UI and lean entries (no preview URLs). This clarifies the output structure and confirms no side effects. The description does not contradict the annotations and provides extra detail about the response format.

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 succinct, using two short sentences to convey the tool's purpose and parameter behavior. No redundant words or filler. It is appropriately structured for a tool with a single optional parameter.

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 simple schema (one optional string) and annotations that already cover safety, the description is sufficient. It provides context about the output format (raw text, no UI) and the filtering capability. It could mention typical use cases, but the information is adequate for a basic understanding.

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 single 'search' parameter is well explained: it filters by name, description, gender, or language. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type. However, it does not specify match behavior (e.g., substring vs exact) or case sensitivity, leaving some ambiguity.

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 indicates the tool lists a TTS voice catalog, implying a read operation. It distinguishes from other audio tools by focusing on voice listing, and the mention of 'raw TOON text' and 'lean entries' suggests a programmatic output format. However, the exact verb 'list' is implicit in 'catalog', so not maximally explicit.

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 use for retrieving available voices before TTS generation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It contrasts with 'no UI' to hint at programmatic use, but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or prerequisites. No mention of alternative tools or conditions.

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