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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result includes an audio URL only on completion, and those links are ephemeral and should be downloaded promptly. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait annotations cannot express; it stops short of 5 only because polling cadence/expiry duration is not stated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return behavior then the actionable warning. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is boilerplate.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to enumerate return fields, yet it flags the one return-value caveat (ephemeral audio links) that matters operationally. For a one-parameter, read-only polling tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'owned by this key' hints at an authorization constraint on the id but adds no format, origin, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (check status) and resource (job), and narrows scope to three job families — long-form, podcast, tts — plus ownership ('this key'). That scope maps cleanly onto the async siblings (generate_long_form, create_podcast, text_to_speech), so an agent can tell this is the polling counterpart without opening another schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'job ... owned by this key' plus the schema note 'Job id returned by an async tool' tells the agent this follows an async submission. There is no explicit when-to-call (after submit, poll until completed), no when-not-to-call, and no named alternatives or terminal-state guidance.

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