text_to_speech

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: the result is a URL rather than a streamed file, the URL expires after 7 days, and the operation has real monetary cost. It does not cover latency, failure modes, or rate limits, but the disclosed behaviors are valuable.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and then deliver the most important behavioral details: output URL, expiry, and cost. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

For a simple 4-parameter tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers the return format, URL validity, and cost. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance versus streaming or other siblings, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 100%, and every parameter already has a type, default, and explanatory description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantic content beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Convert text to speech (MiniMax voices).' It clearly differentiates this audio tool from the sibling media tools (generate_image, generate_video) and chat, and adds concrete return behavior ('Returns the audio file URL').

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of exclusions such as streaming TTS via a sibling endpoint. The cost information is useful but does not help the agent choose between text_to_speech and related tools.

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