get_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns specific fields and works by name or id, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only status, though 'get' implies non-mutating behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses a colon to concisely list the returned fields. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields and parameter semantics. It doesn't detail error responses or exact result shape, but the tool's simplicity makes the information sufficient for correct invocation and expectation.

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 only defines 'voice' as a required string with no description. The description's 'by name or id' provides crucial meaning, explaining what values the parameter accepts. This significantly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 this tool retrieves details for a single voice, listing specific returned fields (category, labels, description, preview_url). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_voices (multiple voices) and preview_voices (audio preview).

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 use when you need details for one voice by name or id, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like list_voices or search_voice_library. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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