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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the JSON return shape but omits critical behavior such as async/callback_url returning a task_id before audio is ready and the need to poll fish_get_task for results. This is a significant transparency gap for a complex synthesis API.

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 first sentence is an efficient purpose statement and the example is useful. However, the 'Use this when' bullets largely restate the first sentence ('convert text to speech' is nearly identical to 'generate speech audio from text'), adding redundancy without new information.

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?

This is a complex tool with 22 optional parameters, asynchronous modes, and voice-cloning options, yet the description only covers the basic synchronous path. It omits operational guidance for async/callback_url, references/reference_audio_url, and retrieving results via fish_get_task, so an agent could easily misuse the tool for non-default use cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The example adds practical semantics for text and reference_id, but the description does not explain parameter relationships like references vs reference_id or async vs callback_url, which the schema also leaves implicit.

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 specific action ('Generate speech audio from text') and the service ('Fish TTS'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get/list tools. The 'Use this when' bullets reinforce the purpose and leave no doubt about what the tool is for.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when' conditions for text-to-speech and narration, giving clear invocation context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool generates audio, so the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool returns a 'JSON response from /fish/model/{id}', giving a minimal glimpse into the HTTP call and return format. However, it does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or required permissions, which is a minor gap for a read-only operation but acceptable given the simplicity.

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, consisting of two short sentences totaling under 20 words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and return type without any unnecessary prose.

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 trivial complexity, a complete parameter schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly identifies the action and the endpoint. However, it lacks a mention of how this relates to sibling tools like fish_list_models, which would help an agent decide when to use this tool. This is a minor gap, but otherwise the description covers all essential context.

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 covers the single parameter model_id with a clear description, so the schema fully explains its meaning. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond that, meeting the baseline but providing no extra value.

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 function: 'Get a Fish voice model by ID.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'by ID' explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fish_list_models. The return note about the endpoint adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 implies usage when you need a specific model by ID, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like fish_list_models or fish_get_task. It does not mention any exclusions or when to prefer alternatives, so the usage context is only inferred from the tool's name and parameter requirements.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses task states and result behavior (including audio URL and error message), but omits details like whether the operation is read-only, possible 404 errors, or polling frequency limits.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet-point task states, and a concise return summary. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 low-complexity status-check tool with an output schema available, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, states, and expected result. It lacks a note about error handling (e.g., task not found), but this is minor given the schema presence.

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?

There is only one parameter, task_id, and the schema provides full description (100% coverage) including its source from fish_generate_audio. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Query the status and result of a Fish audio generation task' with a specific verb and resource. The singular 'a task' differentiates it from sibling fish_get_tasks_batch, and the mention of retrieving audio URL clarifies its purpose.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this to check if a task is complete and retrieve the resulting audio URL' and provides polling guidance via task states ('keep polling'). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Query') and return contents, but does not detail error behavior, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is adequate for a status query but lacks depth.

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 three sentences with no fluff, front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence, and every sentence conveys meaningful information (purpose, efficiency, return data).

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 simple tool (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool does and what it returns. It could have explicitly mentioned the singular alternative or any limits, but this is not necessary for basic usage.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter task_ids ('List of task IDs to query status for'). The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Query the status of multiple Fish tasks at once' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the singular sibling fish_get_task by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'batch' efficiency.

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 implies when to use this tool ('in a single request' for efficiency) versus repeatedly calling a single-task tool, but does not explicitly name the alternative fish_get_task or state exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the batch use case.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a 'Complete usage guide', which tells the user the primary output. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, but that is obvious for a guide tool. It could mention that no state is changed, but the description adequately conveys its non-mutating nature.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Returns:' line somewhat duplicates the initial statement but is short. Overall, every sentence contributes useful information, and there is little fluff.

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?

The tool is a simple guide with no parameters and a self-explanatory output. An output schema exists but isn't detailed in the prompt, so the description's mention of 'parameters, examples, and best practices' gives adequate context about the content of the returned guide. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are no parameters to explain, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('usage guide for Fish TTS tools'), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools that perform actual TTS operations or model queries. It explicitly states this is a guide for using the Fish tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need guidance on how to use the Fish TTS tools effectively. It mentions parameters, examples, and best practices, which signals the type of information provided. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a guide tool this context is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one nuance (has_more is boolean only when self=true, otherwise possibly null), but that is a return-shape detail already implied by the output schema, and it says nothing about pagination limits, auth requirements, or read-only safety.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb+resource leads. It is efficient, though the second clause about has_more reads as an afterthought rather than essential information.

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 9-parameter listing tool with no annotations and several sibling retrieval tools, the description is too thin: it omits when to use it over fish_get_model and says nothing about the paging behavior that 9 optional filter params imply. The rich schema and output schema offset some of this, but routing guidance is absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters, including the self/title_language interaction constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb+resource ('List Fish voices'), which is clearer than the ambiguous name 'list_models' and tells the agent this returns a collection of voices. However, it does not distinguish the tool from the sibling fish_get_model (single-voice retrieval) or explain what a 'voice/model' is in this context.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus fish_get_model, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only conditional note (has_more semantics under self=true) is about return values, not usage selection, so the agent gets no routing guidance.

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