get_voice_id_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the return format ('JSON with voice_id and confidence') and behavioral trait ('fuzzy matching'). It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers core functionality adequately for a lookup tool.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently cover purpose, output, and usage guidelines without any wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple lookup tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, the return format, and a key behavior (fuzzy matching). It could improve by mentioning error cases or input format expectations, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'voice_name' is used for 'fuzzy matching' to resolve to an ID, which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic type definition, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Resolves') and resource ('voice name to ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_voice', 'search_voice_library', or 'search_voices' by focusing on name-to-ID resolution rather than broader voice retrieval or search operations.

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?

It explicitly provides usage guidance with 'Use when: need voice ID from name with fuzzy matching', specifying the context (name-to-ID conversion) and a key feature (fuzzy matching) that helps differentiate it from alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools.

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