search_voice_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only search operation, which is accurate. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond page_size.

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?

Concise: one-sentence purpose, bulleted parameter list, return statement. Front-loaded and no unnecessary text. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., markdown), but effective.

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 an output schema exists, return details are covered. Parameter descriptions are minimal but cover essential usage. Missing details like pagination limits or language format, but overall adequate for a straightforward search tool.

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 provides brief hints for each parameter (e.g., 'free-text search', examples for category) but lacks full allowed values, format requirements (e.g., language codes), or constraints (e.g., max page_size). Adds some value but incomplete.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('shared ElevenLabs voice library (community voices)'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_voices' (likely personal library) and 'clone_voice' (cloning).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It implies searching the community library, but does not mention when to prefer this over 'list_voices' or other search tools. No exclusions or context provided.

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