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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: which voice collections are accessible, what fields are matched, and that every voice supports 31 languages but sounds most natural in its recorded language.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core search action and scope, then useful detail about matching and language behavior. There is no filler and each sentence contributes 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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what is searchable and how matching works. It does not describe the return shape or whether results are paginated, which is a minor gap given the presence of a limit parameter.

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 only 50%, with query described but limit undocumented. The description compensates well for query by explaining that names in any language, tags, and descriptions are matched, and what happens when query is omitted, but it does not explain the limit parameter or result ordering.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching the voices available to this API key. It precisely scopes what is searchable (stock voices, owned/bought voices, catalog voices), which lets an agent distinguish this lookup tool from the sibling speak tool without opening the schema.

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 explaining that the tool searches available voices and that omitting the query lists stock and most-liked voices. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus speak or get_usage, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites for searching.

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