search_voices

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 states the tool returns 'JSON with voice details' but lacks critical information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what specific voice details are included. 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose and return format, the second provides usage guidelines. It's front-loaded with essential information and contains zero wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, search functionality), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return structure beyond 'JSON with voice details,' doesn't address parameter interactions or defaults, and leaves behavioral aspects like error handling undocumented. The description should provide more context for effective tool 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. It mentions searching 'by name, gender, or characteristics,' which partially explains the 'search' parameter but ignores the three other parameters (sort, sort_direction, return_format) entirely. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by parameter names and enums in the schema.

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 verb ('Searches') and resource ('available voices'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_voice' or 'get_voice_id_by_name' by emphasizing search functionality rather than retrieval of specific voices. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_voice_library', which appears to be a similar sibling tool.

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: finding voices by name, gender, or characteristics,' giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'search_voice_library', but the guidance is sufficiently detailed for basic decision-making.

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