get_speech_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing on top of that — no mention of default ordering, pagination behavior, result caps, or what the returned items contain.

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 a single short phrase with no wasted words and is trivially front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. It neither misleads nor informs.

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 nine-parameter listing/filtering tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify that it returns a filtered, paginated set of speech-history items and note the default sort. Given many closely named siblings, this is insufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 100%, the schema fully documents all nine filter parameters (search, source, model_id, voice_id, pagination, date bounds), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as filter interaction or defaults.

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?

"List Generated Items" names a verb and a resource, but "Generated Items" is so generic it does not resolve to the speech-generation history the tool name implies, nor does it distinguish this from siblings like list_text_to_speech_generations or list_image_generations. It is close to a restatement that carries no disambiguating information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this listing tool versus get_speech_history_item_by_id, download_speech_history_items, or the other list_* generation tools. Nothing tells the agent which context selects this tool.

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