list_hubs_search_voice

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds a small amount of behavioral context by indicating results are per-hub and that include_collections toggles collection results, plus the limit default of 3. It does not discuss pagination or auth, but the annotations and output schema cover the risk profile.

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 compact and well-structured with a clear Args list and no verbose filler. The opening 'Voice Search Hub' is more of a label than an informative sentence, and the description could have used that space for an explicit action statement, but overall it is concise without excessive redundancy.

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 low-complexity: all parameters are optional, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The description adequately documents the endpoint and parameters, but it is incomplete for selection because it never clarifies the 'voice' semantics or when to choose this over list_hubs_search.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains all three parameters: query is the search term, limit is items per hub with a default of 3, and include_collections controls whether collection results appear. The query explanation is thin, but the other two add real value beyond the schema titles.

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 identifies the endpoint 'GET /hubs/search/voice' and lists query/limit/include_collections, so an agent can infer this is a hub search operation. However, 'Voice Search Hub' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it does not explain what distinguishes this voice variant from the sibling list_hubs_search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_hubs_search or the other list_hubs_* siblings. The query parameter implies a search use case, but no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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