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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the important side effect that reading a completed job finishes it, making repeat calls safe. It also explains cancellation token behavior: returned before running, potentially charged and still finishing once running, and states the call is free.

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 dense and front-loads the core status purpose, then adds side effects and cancellation behavior. It is slightly conversational, especially “after the person comes back,” but every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the completed result shape: clip name, link, and position in the video. It also covers status states, repeat-call safety, cancellation semantics, and cost, which is 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 coverage is 100% and already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics by explaining that job_id is the value returned by extract_sound_effect and by clarifying the real effect of the cancel action.

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 operation: checking the status of a sound extraction job identified by job_id, with its possible states and clip details. It also explicitly ties the job to the sibling tool extract_sound_effect, so the agent can distinguish it from generic job/status 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?

It clearly indicates the tool is used after an extract_sound_effect job and that repeated calls are safe, plus it explains the cancel action. It does not explicitly compare against generic siblings like check_job_status or get_audio_status, but the typed job context is clear.

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