list_voices

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

The description reveals the underlying endpoint (GET /reference-elements/voices) and the output fields. It implies a read-only operation with the verb 'reads'. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably, though it could explicitly state idempotency or auth needs.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second explains usage, and the third provides a practical example. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description fails to document the two parameters, which is a significant gap for a simple list tool. The agent would need to infer parameter meanings from context.

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?

The schema has two parameters (size and account) with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description does not mention either parameter. Therefore, it adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of `size` and `account`.

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 it lists TTS preset voices with specific fields (id, name, gender, preview mp3) and explicitly links to the sibling tool generate_audio. It distinguishes itself from other list tools by focusing on voice presets for audio generation.

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 explains when to use the tool (before generate_audio to obtain a voice_id) and provides a specific use case for Turkish voiceover. However, it lacks explicit exclusion criteria or alternatives to other list tools.

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