Send a voice broadcast

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

Annotations indicate no read-only or destructive behavior, and the description adds important context: wallet deduction, queuing, billing per second, and required `voice` scope. No contradictions.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the most critical information (billing, queueing, alternatives), and every sentence adds essential context.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers inputs, side effects (billing, queuing), scope requirement, and idempotency, making it sufficient for this action-oriented tool.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of `text` and `audio_url`, default voice, and billing implications.

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 sends a voice broadcast, deducts wallet balance, and queues calls. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'voice broadcast' and mentioning alternatives like `text` and `audio_url`.

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 explains when to use `text` vs `audio_url` and notes billing per second, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like hellio_send_sms.

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