preview_voices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a non-consuming preview ('No generation, no voice slots consumed') and that it returns preview_urls. It does not cover all edge cases, but the key behavioral guarantee is present.

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?

Well-organized: a purpose statement, a usage tip with next step, and a concise Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is scannable without being overly verbose.

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 description gives a complete workflow from previewing to adding a speaker, including the exact function call with required parameters. It lacks explicit return structure details, but for a preview tool this is sufficient.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining query as a short role term with examples, filters as optional labels, and n as the count with a default. This provides meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 tool's function: 'Preview voices for a role — search the Voice Library and return top candidates' with preview_url. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_voice_library by emphasizing the preview_url output and 'No generation, no voice slots consumed.'

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 guidance: 'Library voices sound better than designed ones — search here first' and instructs to use add_speaker_from_library after picking a candidate. This makes the intended workflow clear and includes a direct alternative comparison to designed voices.

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