Text to speech

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic conversion action, such as generation latency, temporary file handling, or voice availability constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and one key variable.

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 text-to-speech tool with rich structured fields, the description is mostly complete: output schema handles return values, annotations cover safety, and the schema documents all parameters. The main remaining gap is sibling differentiation, but the core invocation requirements are covered.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters, including text, speed, voiceId, and language. The description's mention of a 'selectable voice' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Convert text into spoken audio.' It also mentions a selectable voice, which clarifies scope. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings such as voiceover_to_video, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like voiceover_to_video or when to first call list_tts_voices. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose.

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