getVoice

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not disclose return format, permissions, or edge cases, but the annotations adequately cover the safety profile, so the description is not misleading.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, which is ideal for a simple lookup tool.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description, schema, and annotations together provide adequate context. However, without an output schema, the description could specify what metadata is included (e.g., name, provider, languages) to be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a descriptive explanation for voice_id. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles the semantics.

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 returns detailed metadata for a specific voice, implying a retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like listVoices by targeting a single voice, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listVoices or when it would be appropriate. The use case is only implied by the 'specific voice' wording, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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