tts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.04 USDC), p99 latency (8000ms), return fields (audio_base64 and duration), and licensing terms (public domain/CC0, commercial use allowed). These are all valuable behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and then parameters. It is efficient and every sentence adds information, but could be slightly better structured with line breaks for readability.

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 return values (audio_base64, duration), cost, latency, and licensing. An agent has enough information to decide to use the tool and how to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: text max 2000 characters, voice default en-female and options, language values, speed range and default, format default and options. Every parameter gains meaning not present in 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?

States a specific verb (convert) and resource (text to speech audio), plus output formats and voice names. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like audio_transcribe (the reverse operation) and other media tools.

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 purpose implies natural usage (when you need text-to-speech), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. No sibling comparison is given, even though audio_transcribe exists.

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