vocametrix_interpret_voice_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or permissions required. For a tool that likely performs a read/interpretation operation, stating it is non-destructive would improve transparency. The description focuses only on functionality, not behavioral characteristics.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core action ('Translate raw voice metrics...'). Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, the description adequately explains what the tool produces: 'clinical-language interpretation with severity classification ... and actionable recommendations.' It could be slightly more detailed about the exact output structure (e.g., whether severity is a string or object), but it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's role in a workflow, especially with the context of sibling tools that generate the metrics.

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 50% (metrics and languageCode have descriptions; patientAge and patientGender do not). The description adds value by listing example metrics and explaining the output (interpretation with severity and recommendations), which is not captured in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on patientAge or patientGender beyond the schema's built-in constraints.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: translating raw voice metrics into clinical-language interpretation with severity classification and recommendations. The mention of specific metrics (jitter, shimmer, etc.) and output types ('normal/mild/moderate/severe') distinguishes it from sibling tools that calculate these metrics (e.g., vocametrix_calculate_jitter_shimmer).

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 explicitly states when the tool is useful: 'when you have metric values from other tools and want a clinician-readable summary.' This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the sibling tools are largely metric calculators, so the intended use case is well-differentiated.

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