list_provider_voices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful non-obvious context that this operation does NOT consume credits, which is not in the annotations. It does not describe return format or pagination behavior, but with annotations covering safety and idempotency, this is a solid disclosure.

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 two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed by when-to-use guidance. The example earns its place by clarifying provider-scoped filtering, and there is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with full schema parameter documentation and rich annotations, the description supplies the essential missing context: provider scoping, when to use it, and credit behavior. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values beyond the catalog-browsing purpose.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a cross-tool note that filters match search_voices and gives an example combining gender, accent, and provider, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: browsing the voice catalog scoped to ONE specific provider. It distinguishes this from search_voices by provider scope and gives a concrete example of the use case. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the broader voice-search sibling.

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 gives clear usage context: use when the user has already chosen a provider, with an example. It references search_voices as the broader alternative and says this tool uses the same filter params. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use search_voices if no provider is chosen,' so it is strong but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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