get_similar_voices_for_speaker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Deprecated upstream' — but fails to say what to use instead, leaving the agent unable to act on the warning.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the core purpose leads and the deprecation note trails. Slightly cryptic phrasing of the deprecation notice keeps it from being a 5.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, a deprecated tool should name its replacement or state the migration path, and that critical context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both dubbing_id and speaker_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about how the speaker relates to the dubbing project or how results are scoped. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: searching the ElevenLabs voice library for voices similar to a given speaker. An agent can grasp the intent immediately, though it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling get_similar_library_voices, leaving some ambiguity about which 'similar voices' tool to pick.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_similar_library_voices or get_library_voices. The 'Deprecated upstream' note signals caution but stops short of naming the replacement or saying whether it should be avoided entirely.

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