vocametrix_assess_pronunciation

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

The description details what the tool returns (accuracy, fluency, completeness, prosody scores 0–100 plus per-word and per-phoneme breakdowns) and supports 30+ locales, which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, or whether the tool is read-only, but given the assessment nature, the provided information is substantial.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return values, then provides locale support and audio guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return values, and a key usage condition. It does not explicitly compare with similar sibling tools, but the detail on outputs and locales provides sufficient completeness.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance: audioPath should be a 'clear reading' and speakerLocale supports 30+ locales with examples, enhancing semantics without repeating schema details.

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 tool scores pronunciation accuracy at the phoneme level against a reference text, listing specific output scores and breakdowns. It distinguishes itself from siblings like batch or pitch-based tools by focusing on phoneme-level analysis and returning multiple dimensions (accuracy, fluency, completeness, prosody).

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 provides a usage condition ('Audio should be a clear reading of the reference text') but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over siblings like vocametrix_assess_pronunciation_with_pitch or vocametrix_batch_pronunciation. The intended use case is implied but not clearly stated.

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