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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it references poll_again, generation_status, ready_to_share, and listen_url, and explains the condition for sharing the result. It also warns that there is no in-chat widget, which is useful behavioral context an agent would not infer from the schema or 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?

Four short sentences, all purposeful: the purpose, the trigger condition, the polling loop, and the sharing condition. No filler or repetition of schema details. The most important instruction is front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description supplies the essential return-related semantics an agent needs: poll_again controls looping, ready_to_share gates sharing, and listen_url is the artifact to share. Combined with read-only annotations, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents end_user_id and generation_id thoroughly. The tool description adds only that end_user_id should be the same as the create call and that generation_id comes from create_song_generation, which is mild added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a SoundBreak song generation until complete.' It also anchors the tool in the generation lifecycle by explicitly linking it to create_song_generation, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling list, artist, and preview tools. This is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to call the tool ('Call after create_song_generation with generation_id and the same end_user_id') and when to keep calling ('Keep calling while poll_again is true'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use it, but the polling context is strong enough to prevent misuse.

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