List WellSaid voices

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing that fields like name, style, accent, gender, and language are returned 'when the API provides them,' acknowledging potential data variability. It also implies a caching mechanism via the refresh parameter (though not in the description itself), but does not mention rate limits or other behaviors.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by essential output details and filter capability. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is returned, the optional filter, and the connection to speech generation. It lacks only explicit mention of pagination/limit behavior, but the schema covers that. Given the tool's simplicity and available annotations, this is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the search filter concept but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain limit or refresh beyond what the schema already does, so no additional value is provided.

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 opens with 'List the available WellSaid voice avatars' — a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the tool's role by stating it returns speaker_id (the value passed to wellsaid_generate_speech), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wellsaid_list_voice_criteria.

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 gives clear context by linking the output to wellsaid_generate_speech, implying this tool is for selecting voices for speech generation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives (e.g., wellsaid_list_voice_criteria), but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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