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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the operation is public, free, and reports specific lifecycle states plus MP3/ASS subtitle readiness. No contradiction is present.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the main purpose and then add the exact state list and artifact readiness. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but still earns its place by adding specifics.

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 single-parameter status-checking tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it names all meaningful states and the readiness indicators. It does not explain response shape, but the status enumeration covers what an agent needs to interpret the result.

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 sole job_id parameter is already described as the 32-character ID received at submission. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete action (get status/result availability) on a specific resource (TTS job) and enumerates the exact state values and artifact readiness flags. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tts_jobs_create, tts_jobs_cancel, tts_jobs_result, and tts_jobs_subtitles.

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 makes the intended use clear: check a job's waiting/processing/completed/cancelled/failed state and whether MP3/ASS files are ready. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the status/readiness focus is enough to route an agent correctly.

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