listEdgeVoices

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the filter mention describes the main behavioral capability. It does not add deeper details like return shape, but for a simple listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the supported filters are summarized efficiently.

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 low-complexity listing tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filter options adequately. It could be more complete by stating what is returned or how this relates to sibling tools like previewEdgeVoice, but the core invocation path is clear.

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 coverage is 67%, with q and lang documented and gender available via enum values. The description restates these filters with examples like 'en, ms, zh...' and adds the 'substring' wording, but it contributes limited meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter combinations or edge cases.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List Microsoft Edge TTS voices' available for CEMAS / instant calls. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool listVoices by explicitly scoping to Microsoft Edge TTS and the CEMAS/instant-call use case.

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 supplies clear context: this tool is for listing Edge TTS voices used in CEMAS/instant calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a full 5, but the context is strong enough to guide basic selection.

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