create_async_speech

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never says that this is a non-blocking job that returns an identifier to be polled, nor does it mention cost gating, permission needs, or failure modes. 'Validated against the checked-in current OpenAPI contract' is a process remark about the server, not observable behavior, so it does not compensate.

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?

It is short and the purpose sentence is front-loaded, but the second sentence mostly restates that validation happens rather than adding call-relevant information. Little is wasted, yet little is delivered either.

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 a required opaque nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without the shape of the request body or the asynchronous result. It is not enough to call the tool correctly without consulting external documentation.

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% across three parameters, including a free-form nested 'parameters' object whose allowed keys are entirely undocumented. The one useful hint, that the request must match the checked-in OpenAPI contract, is only a pointer to external documentation and adds no concrete meaning for allow_paid or allow_unknown_cost.

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?

It names a concrete verb and resource ('Create speech') and signals that this runs through a separate async flow API, which sets it apart from a plain generation call. However, it never explains how the async flow differs from generate_speech or generate_speech_stream, so an agent cannot confidently prefer one over the other from the description alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to pick instead. The presence of get_async_speech strongly suggests a follow-up polling step, but the description never says so, leaving the agent to infer the whole workflow.

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