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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits — that polling is free and starts no generation, and that the caller must verify the actual debit in soclo_wallet rather than assume a free piece. No contradiction: the poll itself is free while the original generation was billed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the source of the required values; every clause carries operational weight (unchanged values, free, no generation, verify debit). The wallet caution is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what the polling terminates in ('the finished audio is returned') and that cost must be checked separately, so nothing essential to correct invocation is missing for a read-only, idempotent status tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the values must be copied from the soclo_audio_make reply and never altered, and that polling continues until the finished audio appears. Only clientRequestId is left unaddressed in prose, which the schema still documents.

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 and resource ('Track a queued audio piece') and immediately scopes it to the artifacts returned by soclo_audio_make, which separates it cleanly from soclo_audio_make (creation), soclo_audio_quote (pricing) and soclo_audio_recover (ID-based recovery). An agent can pick this tool without opening the 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?

Gives clear operating instructions: pass the exact statusUrl, responseUrl and receiptId from the make reply, unchanged, repeatedly 'until the finished audio is returned' — that effectively describes the polling loop. It also routes cost verification to soclo_wallet. It does not explicitly say when to prefer soclo_audio_recover instead, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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