search_voice_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('shared voices list') but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 each serve distinct purposes: stating the action/return value and providing usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain parameters, return format details, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a search tool with multiple parameters, this leaves too much unspecified for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions no parameters at all - it doesn't explain what 'search', 'page', or 'page_size' parameters do or how they affect results. With 3 parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, this is inadequate.

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 action ('Searches') and resource ('global voice library'), and specifies the scope ('across entire ElevenLabs platform'). It distinguishes from sibling 'search_voices' by emphasizing global scope. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_voice' or 'get_voice_id_by_name', leaving some ambiguity about when to use those alternatives.

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 context with 'Use when: finding voices across entire ElevenLabs platform', which clearly indicates the primary scenario. It doesn't specify when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives like 'search_voices', but the global scope implication provides reasonable guidance.

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