search_voice_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the library's scale ('thousands of community voices') and the required add_library_voice prerequisite, but says nothing about pagination, result format, or rate/usage limits for an 8-parameter query 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 sentences, zero waste. The capability and filter dimensions come first and the prerequisite workflow hint is placed last, which is exactly the right front-loading.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone for an 8-parameter search tool, and it leaves pagination, default result ordering (sort defaults to 'trending'), and return shape unexplained. Adequate to select the tool, insufficient to invoke it with full 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 coverage is 50%, and the description only echoes the language/accent/gender/use case filters, which the schema already names. It adds no meaning for the undocumented age enum, sort options, free-text search syntax, or page_size bounds, so it only partially compensates.

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 (search) and resource (ElevenLabs' shared voice library) and clarifies the corpus as community voices filterable by language/accent/gender/use case. This implicitly separates it from the sibling list_voices (the user's own voices), though it never names that distinction 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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance — 'Add a voice with add_library_voice before using it' — naming the follow-up sibling and the ordering constraint. It lacks when-not guidance (e.g. when to use list_voices instead for owned voices), so it stops short of a 5.

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