List voices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile and remote-source nature are covered structurally; the description only adds that the catalog is 'free Edge neural voices'. It does not say whether the catalog is static or live-fetched, whether results are cached, or what a caller should expect in terms of availability or limits. This is useful but modest added context on top of existing annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately follows with the filtering options; no padding, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and how to filter, but leaves the return shape (names, IDs, locale metadata) and the intended follow-on use with generate_voiceover unstated. Since the schema description coverage is 0% and there is no output schema, the description carries the full documentation burden and is only partially 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by specifying that 'language' is a prefix match with concrete examples ('ar', 'en-GB'), which meaningfully clarifies matching behavior beyond the bare string type. The gender parameter gets no extra description, though its enum values (Male/Female) are self-explanatory.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the free Edge neural voices') plus its filter scope, which is clearly distinct from siblings like generate_voiceover and search_footage. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with generate_voiceover, which is the sibling most likely to be confused with a voice-discovery 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?

'Optionally filtered by language prefix and gender' implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that this is the discovery step before generate_voiceover, and no note that it must be called without filters to enumerate everything.

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