search_voices

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint) and variable results (openWorldHint). The description adds value by noting that sorting by 'created_at_unix' may not be available for older voices, a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. This is helpful for agent decision-making.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 (3 parameters, list output) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a key behavioral detail. While it lacks mention of pagination or result limits, the openWorldHint annotation mitigates this. It is complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and behavior. For example, it notes that search filters name, description, labels, and category, and that sort direction orders results. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's enum values.

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 explicitly states the tool searches for voices already in the user's ElevenLabs voice library, differentiating it from public library searches. It specifies searchable fields (name, description, labels, category), making the purpose precise and distinct from siblings like search_voice_library.

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 for the user's own voices but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks direct directives or exclusions, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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