list_voices_by_gender

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 mentions returning a formatted table, which is helpful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, or potential side effects. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 exceptionally concise (two sentences plus structured Args/Returns) with no superfluous content. The purpose is front-loaded, and each line serves a clear function.

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?

With one required parameter, no annotations, but an output schema assumed to exist, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It omits error handling or empty result behavior, but for a simple filter tool, it is sufficiently 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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section explains the gender parameter accepts 'male' or 'female' (case-insensitive), adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists Gemini TTS voices filtered by gender, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling list_voices (which likely lists all voices) by adding the gender filter.

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 usage (when you need voices of a specific gender) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. list_voices or provide exclusions. Sibling context helps but is not leveraged in the description.

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