search_voices

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing search behavior (fields searched) and a caveat about sort field 'created_at_unix' possibly missing. This is sufficient behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it redundantly states 'Searches in name, description, labels and category' both in the main description and the search param docstring. Minor redundancy, but overall well-structured.

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?

The description covers search functionality and sorting, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it lacks information on pagination, result limits, case sensitivity, or matching behavior. Given the tool's simplicity and the openWorldHint, this is adequate but not fully 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: 'search' describes the search fields, 'sort' notes a potential issue with older voices, and 'sort_direction' clarifies order. This adds context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 clearly states the tool searches for voices already added to the user's ElevenLabs voice library, specifying the verb 'search' and the resource 'voices in user's library'. It also lists searchable fields (name, description, labels, category), differentiating it from the sibling 'search_voice_library' which likely searches public voices.

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 clear context: it searches the user's own voice library across multiple fields. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the scope is well-defined, and the sibling name 'search_voice_library' implies a different usage. Minor lack of explicit exclusions prevents a perfect score.

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