Generate OpenAI-Compatible Voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost tiers based on character count, which is a behavioral trait beyond schema. However, it omits other behavioral details like the actual model used (ForgeMesh Voice), rate limits, idempotency, or response format behavior.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage context, pricing. Each sentence earns its place with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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, the description does not cover return values. However, it explains the API compatibility and pricing. Parameter enums are described in schema. Adequate but could mention output behavior or side effects.

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 minimal parameter-level meaning beyond 'OpenAI-shaped' framing; cost info is contextual but not per-parameter. Schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 speech using an OpenAI-shaped request, listing the fields (input, voice, model, response_format). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying compatibility with agents/apps designed around the OpenAI /v1/audio/speech endpoint.

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 explicitly advises using this tool for agents or apps already designed around OpenAI-style payloads, providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context signals list sibling tools.

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