List voice filter criteria

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the tool is known to be read-only and open-world. The description adds behavioral scope by stating it summarizes distinct attributes 'across all voices', which clarifies the aggregation behavior. It does not describe return format, but with zero parameters and a simple summarization role, this is acceptable.

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 sentence that leads with the action ('Summarize'), lists the specific criteria, and closes with a practical use case. Every phrase contributes meaning with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only aggregation), the description fully covers what the tool does and why it is useful. It is complete and self-contained.

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 are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% as it is empty. The description does not need to add parameter details, and according to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'summarize' and identifies the resource (styles, accents, genders, languages, characteristics across all voices), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool wellsaid_list_voices which lists voices themselves.

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?

Explicitly states it is 'useful for narrowing a wellsaid_list_voices search', giving a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the pointer to wellsaid_list_voices is sufficient guidance.

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