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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful return-value context by listing the per-song statuses and split id, which is especially valuable since no output schema exists.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately describes the return payload. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool or its output.

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 simple read tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives the essential output shape (statuses and split id). It remains slightly incomplete because it does not explain the batch_id format or how to obtain a batch id.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented batch_id parameter. It does not mention the parameter name, expected format, or the 16-character hex pattern, adding no semantic meaning 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?

The description states a specific resource (a batch's progress) and ties it to split_songs, making it distinguishable from siblings like get_split or get_split_result. It is clear, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not name alternative tools.

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 phrase 'from split_songs' implies this should be used to monitor a batch created by split_songs, which gives useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no when-not guidance, and no mention of alternative status-checking tools.

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