Speak through NVDA

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (not read-only, not destructive), so the description's disclosure that output is both spoken aloud and brailled, and that the user perceives every word, is genuinely additive. It stops short of saying whether the call blocks until speech completes or how it interacts with in-flight speech, which matters given the nvda_wait_for_speech sibling.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the practical constraint second. No filler, and the length warning earns its place because it changes how an agent writes the payload.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, use case, and payload discipline for a two-parameter tool. The remaining gap is the relationship to sibling speech tools (preview vs. real output, blocking vs. async), which an agent still has to infer.

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 both `text` and `interrupt` are already documented in the schema. 'Keep it short: the user hears every word' reinforces the maxLength intent but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Say a message through NVDA's speech and braille' clearly names the action and the dual output channel (speech + braille). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling nvda_preview_speech, but the 'like an NVDA announcement' framing makes the real-output nature 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?

Gives one concrete use case ('telling the user that a long task finished') but no when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as nvda_preview_speech or nvda_wait_for_speech. Usage is implied rather than framed as a decision rule.

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