Turn text into speech

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

Annotations only carry readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=false. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the call SPENDS CREDIT (~$0.03 engine cost plus margin), that budgetUsd caps it (default 2, max 10), that chargedUsd reports actual cost, and that a write scope is required — exactly the extra operational context an agent needs before a billable mutation.

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?

It is a single dense block, but it is front-loaded with purpose, then capability, then cost/scope. Every clause (character limit, presets, cost, budget, scope) carries information, though the run-on construction slightly hurts scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be spelled out, and the description still notes it returns a media key. Cost, budget behavior, scope requirement, and voice sourcing are all covered; only explicit sibling routing 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real value the schema lacks: the concrete preset voice roster (Sulafat, Charon, Kore, Achird, Erinome, Schedar) and the note that style is a free-text direction line. It clarifies rather than repeats the structured 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?

States a specific verb+resource: read text aloud into a WAV in the media library, with an explicit 2000-char limit. It enumerates the preset voice roster and the character-voice path from characters_list, letting an agent distinguish this from siblings like characters_voice without opening schemas.

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 usage by listing voice options and the write-scope requirement, and points to characters_list for voice ids, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as characters_voice or caption_file. Guidance is context-rich but not comparative.

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