Voices Get Voice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what happens if the ID is not found, whether the provider is mandatory, or what the response contains. It simply restates the retrieval action without new information.

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 a single concise sentence, 'Get a voice by ID', which is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It directly states the function without ambiguity.

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 tool with two parameters (one of which is ambiguous) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the role of 'provider', what a valid response looks like, or any nuances between 'premade provider id' and 'cloned voice UUID'. Given the available sibling context and schema, more detail is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly without confusion.

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 only 50% (id is described in the schema, but provider has no description). The tool description 'Get a voice by ID' only reinforces the id parameter and does not explain the 'provider' parameter, its optionality, or how it affects the lookup. Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 'Get a voice by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('voice'), clearly indicating a retrieval operation for a single voice. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'voices_get-voices' (listing all voices) and 'voices_delete-voice'.

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?

Usage is implied (when you have a voice ID and need its details), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'voices_get-voices' or how it relates to the 'provider' parameter. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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