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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the sample must be a local file of 5-15 seconds in WAV/MP3/M4A/FLAC, but it does not state authentication needs, whether the operation is asynchronous, whether it consumes quota, or what kind of result is returned. This is minimally viable but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the key input constraints without redundant information. Every phrase contributes to helping an agent understand the 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?

The description is adequate for a five-parameter creation tool with fully documented schema fields, and it adds important sample-file constraints. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about return behavior, authentication, and whether the operation is synchronous or job-based. Those omissions leave the definition only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the accepted audio formats and the 5-15 second duration constraint for audio_file_path. It does not add further meaning for name, gender, api_key, or ref_text, but the schema covers those adequately.

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 a specific verb and resource: creating a new cloned voice from a sample audio file. It adds meaningful constraints on the sample clip duration and supported formats. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as bvoiz_synthesize_speech or bvoiz_list_cloned_voices, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this when creating a new voice clone from a local sample. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like synthesize_speech or test_cloned_voice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about irreversibility, whether existing audio/jobs referencing the voice are affected, permission or API-key requirements, or the response. For a destructive delete operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given that this is a destructive 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 destructive, irreversible-sounding delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state consequences, preconditions, and roughly what is returned. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it with confidence.

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%: both api_key ('BVoiz API Key') and clone_id ('Mã Clone ID cần xóa') are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about where clone_id comes from or how to obtain it, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Xóa' – delete) and a specific resource ('một giọng nói nhân bản' – a cloned voice) scoped to the BVoiz account. An agent can immediately tell this is not a read or synthesis operation. It doesn't, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like bvoiz_list_cloned_voices or bvoiz_test_cloned_voice beyond the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing a clone_id from bvoiz_list_cloned_voices), and no note on when deletion is inappropriate. The single sentence describes only what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer all usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses that no account or credits are required and that input is capped at 300 characters, which is important for planning. However, it says nothing about the return value (raw audio vs. URL vs. base64), rate limits, or that save_to_file writes to the local machine.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the free/no-account/limit information is front-loaded before the recommended use case. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the access model and input limit but omits what the tool returns and what happens on disk when save_to_file is used. An agent can call it, but cannot fully predict the response shape.

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%, with each of the 7 parameters documented in-schema including ranges, defaults, and the enum for audio_type. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond repeating the 300-character cap, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Thử nghiệm giọng đọc BVoiz AI' – test a BVoiz AI voice), which is distinct from the bulk-conversion siblings. It does not name the alternative tool (bvoiz_synthesize_speech) explicitly, so a sibling differentiation is only implied via 'trước khi chuyển đổi số lượng lớn'.

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: suitable for checking a voice sample before converting large volumes, which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating explicit exclusions (e.g., use the paid tool when you need more than 300 characters).

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

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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful behavioral weight by disclosing the local-disk write side effect and that the source can be a URL or record ID. It omits overwrite behavior, permission/error handling, and whether large files are streamed, which matters for a filesystem-writing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the destination behavior ('lưu trực tiếp vào ổ đĩa máy cục bộ') is stated up front rather than buried.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core intent is covered. Still missing is what to expect on completion (saved path, overwrite/conflict handling) and error cases, which the absent annotations leave unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples and accepted ID/URL forms. The description only echoes 'qua URL hoặc ID' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific verb ('tải ... về lưu trực tiếp') and resource ('file âm thanh đã sinh từ BVoiz'), and the 'đã sinh' qualifier implicitly separates it from the synthesis siblings like bvoiz_synthesize_speech. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any named 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?

Usage is only implied: download audio that already exists on BVoiz. There is no statement of when to prefer this over bvoiz_get_job_status or bvoiz_get_history, nor any prerequisite or exclusion conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does imply a non-mutating read and lists the fields returned, which is useful. However it does not state whether the call is read-only in a machine-checkable sense, what happens on an invalid/missing API key, or whether a default key is used — notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that earns its place. It is efficiently sized for a simple read tool, though it offers no structure beyond one flat clause.

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?

The listed return fields partially compensate for the absence of an output schema, and the single optional parameter keeps the tool simple. Still missing is any guidance on the no-api_key case and error/auth behavior, which an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 the sole api_key parameter is already documented. The description adds no meaning about the parameter — critically, it never explains the default behavior when api_key is left empty (0 required parameters), which is the one piece of semantics an agent would want.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Xem thông tin tài khoản BVoiz') and enumerates what is returned (credits balance, email, permissions, status). This clearly distinguishes it from all siblings, which deal with voices, synthesis, pricing, and history — no explicit sibling comparison is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the important case where api_key is omitted. Usage is only loosely implied by the verb 'Xem'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that results are account-scoped and limited to recent items, but says nothing about auth requirements beyond the api_key param, ordering, truncation behavior, or what a history entry contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves gaps rather than being a case of lean over-specification.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description could at least sketch what a history record contains (e.g. job id, audio URL, timestamp) so an agent knows what it can chain into bvoiz_download_audio.

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 parameters (limit with default 10 / max 100, and api_key) are already fully documented. The description adds only the notion of recency, which implies ordering but not a format or paging detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Lấy danh sách') and resource ('lịch sử các lần tạo âm thanh') scoped to the account's most recent items. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like bvoiz_get_job_status or bvoiz_synthesize_speech, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'gần nhất' signals this is the tool for recent activity rather than a specific job or account lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer bvoiz_get_job_status for a specific job, and no prerequisites stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, whether the call blocks, how long polling lasts, or what happens if the job fails or the ID is unknown. The polling-until-complete behavior is disclosed only in the schema's wait_until_complete property, not in the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler for a simple retrieval tool. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too thin rather than too wordy.

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 status-check tool with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose but omits the meaningful behavioral facts an agent needs: default non-blocking return, the polling semantics of wait_until_complete, and behavior on error or non-existent IDs.

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 three parameters (job_id, api_key, wait_until_complete) are already documented. The description's only added nuance is that job_id may be a Job ID or Request ID, which the schema also states, so it does not go beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Kiểm tra trạng thái tiến trình tạo âm thanh nền' – check status of background audio generation) and names the lookup key (Job ID or Request ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like bvoiz_synthesize_speech or bvoiz_download_audio, though it never explicitly says it is the polling counterpart to a submitted synthesis job.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of Job ID/Request ID suggests it is called after submitting a job, but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not mention the alternative behavior of blocking vs. non-blocking retrieval, which is the main branching decision an agent faces.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Xem" (view) implies a read-only operation and the sentence previews the returned content (pricing, benefits, top-up instructions), but it says nothing about whether authentication or a paid account is required, whether pricing is per-account or global, or what the response shape looks like. Low risk given zero parameters, but thin 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource before listing its contents, with no filler. It is compact and readable, though written in Vietnamese, which may be a comprehension cost for some agents.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (pricing, benefits, top-up info via VietQR Napas 247) and requires no argument setup. The only gaps are auth/availability context and response format, which are minor for such a simple operation.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The naming of the returned content types is a small bonus but does not add 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 gives a specific verb ("Xem" / view) and a concrete resource ("bảng giá các gói cước credits BVoiz"), plus the supplementary payload it returns (benefits, VietQR Napas 247 top-up info). No sibling in the tool list covers pricing, so the tool is easy to tell apart from the synthesis/voice-management siblings, though it never states that differentiation explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for pricing/credit/top-up questions, but there is no explicit "call this when the user asks about cost or credits" statement and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the trigger.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one useful trait beyond the name — that the response includes a listenable demo, not just metadata — but it omits whether authentication is required, whether the call is read-only/side-effect free, and what the returned detail payload contains.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action ('Xem chi tiết thông tin') and appending the preview capability. Nothing is wasted, though there is little structure to speak of beyond that one clause.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should hint at what 'chi tiết thông tin' actually includes (e.g., locale, gender, style, demo audio URL). As written, an agent knows the action but not the shape of the result.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with a concrete example ('bvoiz_nam_mb_muu_luoc'). The description's 'theo ID cụ thể' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieve detailed information about a BVoiz voice identified by ID, and additionally preview/hear it. This clearly separates it from list/search tools by emphasizing a single voice_id lookup, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'theo ID cụ thể' signals it needs a specific voice_id, presumably obtained from bvoiz_list_voices or bvoiz_search_voices, but the description never says so. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as bvoiz_test_cloned_voice or bvoiz_demo_synthesize, which also involve hearing a voice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Lấy danh sách' signals a read-only enumeration, which is useful, but the description says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, empty-state behavior, or whether authentication is implied beyond the optional api_key parameter.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope appear immediately and nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves open what the listing contains (fields returned, pagination, count limits) and how it differs concretely from the sibling voice-listing tools.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (api_key) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the environment-variable override. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter or about how authentication affects the result scope, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Lấy danh sách') and resource ('các giọng nói nhân bản / Voice Clones') scoped to the user's BVoiz account, which implicitly separates it from bvoiz_list_voices and bvoiz_search_voices. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating cloned voices rather than all voices, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like bvoiz_list_voices or bvoiz_search_voices, and no prerequisites or account-context notes.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about the return shape, default result size, pagination, or whether an API key is required. The only signal is the word 'danh sách', which weakly implies a read-only operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and the filters second, with no wasted text. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which is not a conciseness flaw.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is minimally adequate, but it leaves the agent guessing about result volume, pagination, and how to choose between this and bvoiz_search_voices.

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% and all five parameters (including enums for gender and provider) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter dimensions without adding syntax, defaults, or combination semantics, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lấy danh sách các giọng đọc AI của BVoiz') and enumerates the filter dimensions (ngôn ngữ, giới tính, vùng miền, nhà cung cấp). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling bvoiz_search_voices, which appears to overlap in intent.

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 implies a filtered-listing use case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names bvoiz_search_voices or bvoiz_get_voice_details as alternatives. An agent must infer the routing decision on its own.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool searches by keyword and gives examples; it does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, or whether limits/pagination apply beyond the schema's default.

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 front-loaded sentence with a compact list of illustrative keywords. It is efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted preamble.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, because there are no annotations or output schema, it could have clarified what the search returns or how results are ranked, leaving a gap in contextual completeness.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only example keywords, which overlap with the schema's own examples and do not add deeper semantics for the query or limit parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Tìm kiếm') and resource ('giọng đọc BVoiz'), and clarifies that search is by smart keyword. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool bvoiz_list_voices, so it falls short of a 5.

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 examples ('tin tức', 'kể chuyện đêm khuya', 'quảng cáo') imply how to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this search versus bvoiz_list_voices or other sibling tools. Usage is therefore only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly restates the adjustable parameters already in the schema. It does not disclose the API-key/auth requirement, cost or rate limits, what the call returns (audio bytes vs URL vs Job ID), or how the async path behaves – all critical for a mutation/synthesis tool.

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 focused sentences that front-load the core purpose, with no filler or redundancy. Slightly under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally clean.

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 9-parameter synthesis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the return value, the auth requirement, and the async/job-handoff workflow. It also does not point to bvoiz_get_job_status or bvoiz_download_audio, leaving the async path underspecified.

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 every parameter (including pitch, speed, volume ranges, speaker_id, async, save_to_file) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a generic summary of adjustable aspects, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Chuyển đổi văn bản thành giọng nói AI' / text-to-speech) on the BVoiz platform and enumerates the adjustable aspects. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'bvoiz_demo_synthesize', which an agent could easily confuse with this production synthesize tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of bvoiz_demo_synthesize, bvoiz_clone_voice, or the async/download siblings. The only hint ('tùy chọn lưu file cục bộ') implies a save workflow but does not state when/when-not to apply it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a 'short' text limit and a preview purpose, but says nothing about what is returned (audio stream vs. the save_to_file path), whether the call consumes credits, or what errors look like — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is perhaps too terse for an unannotated tool with four parameters.

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 preview tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return value (playable audio vs. saved file) and the API-key requirement. It establishes the purpose but leaves the agent guessing about the result of a successful call.

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 four parameters (text, clone_id, api_key, save_to_file) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: read out a short text sample using a cloned voice (Clone Voice ID) for quality checking. This distinguishes it in intent from bvoiz_synthesize_speech, though it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

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 phrase 'để kiểm tra chất lượng' implies this is a preview/test step, which suggests when to use it. However, there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g. use bvoiz_synthesize_speech for full production audio).

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