Generate speech

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, non-idempotent), so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does, disclosing cost (~$0.01-0.02/minute) and the default output format, which an agent needs for budgeting. It does not say whether generation is synchronous or job-based, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then delivery control, then cost, then use cases. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing decision-relevant information.

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?

For a 10-parameter, zero-required tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the framing an agent needs: two modes, style control, cost, and target use cases. It leaves the approval-threshold mechanics and sync/async behavior to the schema, a minor but real gap.

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 every parameter already documents itself with examples (voice names, model aliases, BCP-47 codes, inline tags). The description only restates the text-vs-dialogue and style concepts at a high level, adding little beyond the schema — the correct baseline of 3.

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 and resource ('Turn text into natural speech (WAV)') and immediately disambiguates the two operating modes: single voice vs. two-speaker dialogue. That distinction cleanly separates it from siblings like generate_music and generate_video without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts ('podcasts, voiceovers, narration and dialogue'), which tells the agent when this is the right tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer generate_music for sung/ambient audio), so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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