Generate Controlled Voice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds cost information ('$0.003 for 1-500 chars or $0.006 for 501-2000 chars') and output format ('WAV speech'), which are not in the schema. It does not cover potential side effects or rate limits, but the cost transparency is valuable for an agent.

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 only two sentences, both front-loaded with key information: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage and pricing. No redundant words; every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and cost. It implies maximum length via pricing tiers (up to 2000 chars) but does not explicitly state the character limit. Output format is specified as WAV, which is sufficient for a speech generation tool. Minor gaps like explicit length limit and potential response format details prevent a 5.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description mentions 'speed and quality' inline but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., speed range, steps range). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 'Generate WAV speech with granular controls for speed and quality', specifying the verb 'Generate', the resource 'WAV speech', and the key differentiator 'granular controls'. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_standard_voice (basic) and generate_batch_voices (batch processing), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when an agent needs faster, slower, clearer, more polished, or more deliberate delivery', providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives, but the sibling names and context signals imply which other tools might be used instead.

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