get_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'Read' weakly implies read-only, but there is no statement about permissions, behavior for a nonexistent or inaccessible voice_id, or what the returned voice record contains. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, this is a substantial gap.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the key scope ('single', 'by ID') is front-loaded. The brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification that other dimensions already penalize.

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 simple, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say at least roughly what a voice record returns and how failures surface. As written, an agent knows only that it reads one voice by ID, not how to use the result or recover from errors.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It only contributes the generic phrase 'by ID', leaving the voice_id format, accepted value space (e.g., library vs. custom voice IDs), and identifier source undocumented beyond the string type and length bounds.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a single voice') and explicitly scopes to one record 'by ID', which implicitly separates it from list_voices and from get_voice_preview. It stops short of naming a sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative tools (list_voices, get_voice_settings, get_voice_preview), and no note that a valid voice_id must already be known. The agent must infer everything about tool selection from the name and the phrase 'by ID'.

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