Generate Batch Voices

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost structure ($0.002 for 500 chars, etc.) and that it uses standard voices, which are key behavioral traits for an agent. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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, with two sentences covering functionality, constraints, usage context, and cost. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (batch, nested objects, 2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, cost, and constraints. It mentions 'WAV audio' but does not detail return format, error handling, or defaults behavior, which could be helpful but is not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only standard voices are used (voice field is open-ended in schema) and that it is a paid call, which are semantic constraints beyond the schema.

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 generates WAV audio for up to 20 text items in one paid call using standard voices. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_standard_voice (single item) and others by emphasizing batch processing with standard 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 explicit usage scenarios (queues, notifications, scripted sequences, etc.) and cost details, helping the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to alternatives like generate_controlled_voice.

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