speech_t2a_async_create

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

With no annotations, the description discloses core async behavior, return value (task_id), and input limits, but is silent on rate limits, quotas, error states, or side effects. It is minimally adequate.

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, no extraneous words, front-loads the key action and constraint. 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 the tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It misses default values, interaction between parameters (e.g., text vs text_file_id), and does not cover the complexity of optional fields.

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 only 12%, yet the description adds no detail beyond hinting at text and text_file_id usage. The many other parameters (vol, pitch, speed, format, etc.) are left unexplained, failing to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('async long-text T2A task'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning async nature and returning a task_id for polling with speech_t2a_async_query.

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 implies when to use (async, long text up to 1M chars via file, or 50k via text) and references the polling tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like speech_t2a_http.

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