get_voice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'voice metadata and settings' which provides some output context, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid voice IDs. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 with just two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text. The structure efficiently separates purpose, returns, and usage context in minimal space.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation coverage, the description is incomplete. While it states the purpose and usage context, it doesn't adequately explain what 'voice details' includes, how to obtain valid voice IDs, what authentication is required, or what the return structure looks like. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 for the single parameter 'voice_id', the description provides no information about what constitutes a valid voice ID, where to find voice IDs, format requirements, or examples. The description mentions 'specific voice' which implies the parameter identifies a voice, but this is already obvious from the parameter name. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool 'gets voice details' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes 'details' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_voice_id_by_name' or 'search_voices' that also retrieve voice information. The description avoids tautology but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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 explicit usage guidance with 'Use when: need detailed information about a specific voice,' which clearly indicates the appropriate context. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use this tool or explicitly name alternatives like 'get_voice_id_by_name' or 'search_voices' for different use cases.

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