get_voice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which signal safe read-only behavior and variable results. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the voice does not exist). With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description provides adequate but minimal added transparency.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately actionable.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description captures the essential behavior. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid voice_id), but the presence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature make it sufficiently complete. The score is slightly reduced because a note about existence or error handling would further enhance completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description 'Get details of a specific voice' makes the single parameter voice_id clearly its identifier. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces the intended use, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 'Get details of a specific voice' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (details of a specific voice). It distinguishes this retrieval tool from sibling tools like search_voices or voice_clone that perform different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool requires a known voice_id, while search_voices is used to find voices by criteria. The context signal of sibling tools highlights the absence of any comparative usage hints.

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