Generate Standard Voice

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

No annotations present, so description must cover behavioral traits. It reveals cost structure, character limit (2000), and output format (WAV). Missing details on latency, asynchronicity, required permissions, or error handling.

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?

Two sentences convey purpose, scope, best uses, and pricing. No redundancy; critical info is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 (text input, voice/lang options, WAV output) and absence of output schema, description suitably covers use cases, cost, and limits. Minor gap: does not mention typical response format (binary WAV) but that is standard for TTS.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by contextualizing voice and lang parameters ('10 standard voices across 31 languages') and reiterating character limit, aiding parameter selection beyond schema alone.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Generate low-cost WAV speech from text' with specific scope (10 standard voices, 31 languages) and lists best use cases (agent narration, status updates, alerts). Distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing simplicity and cost.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Best for simple agent narration, status updates, alerts, and short spoken responses.' Includes cost tiers, but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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