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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that it includes search, filtering, and pagination, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on response format, pagination details, or any edge cases, so it adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 short (two sentences), but the first sentence 'Get Voices V2.' is redundant with the tool name and adds no value. The second sentence is concise but lacks structure. It is not verbose, but the filler reduces efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has 21 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It provides no information about the meaning of search, filtering, pagination parameters, or expected return structure. This is far from complete for a complex tool.

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%, and the description only mentions generic 'search, filtering, and pagination' without explaining any of the 21 parameters (age, accent, gender, voice_type, etc.). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, making it impossible for an agent to know what each parameter does.

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 clearly states that this tool lists all available voices for a user with search, filtering, and pagination. It specifies the resource (voices) and the action (get list). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like elevenlabs_get_voices or elevenlabs_get_library_voices, but the mention of 'for a user' and the V2 suffix provides some distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when it is appropriate or how it differs from other voice-listing tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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