list_voice

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds real substance on top: that query searches name/locale plus service-supplied tags, that offset/limit paginate, and a warning that tags are descriptive metadata rather than supported SSML styles. That last caveat is exactly the kind of trap an agent would otherwise fall into. Minor gap: no note on ordering or result-set size behavior.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and filtering dimensions, then the workflow hint, then pagination, then the tag caveat. No filler; the only looseness is that the ShortName instruction sits between filter and paging details.

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?

Output schema existence removes the need to describe return values, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the filtering model, pagination, and the tag-vs-SSML-style caveat, so an agent can call it correctly. A short note on ordering or typical result volume would close the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does explain locale prefix matching ("ru or ru-RU"), gender, query search scope, and offset/limit paging. However, it does not clarify limits on limit (max 1000), the default empty-string semantics for locale/gender, or whether query matches partial substrings. Good coverage, but not complete compensation for a 0% schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("List Microsoft voices") and immediately scopes the filtering dimensions (locale prefix, gender). The sentence about passing a returned ShortName as the tts voice implicitly ties it to the tts sibling, though it never names tts or get_capabilities directly.

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?

"No filter lists all voices" tells the agent the zero-argument case, and the ShortName instruction describes the downstream workflow with tts. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, but for this tool the usage context is clear enough.

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