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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses a lot: the state machine (queued/running/success/failed), the fields to inspect per state, the 1-hour resultUrl validity with re-query semantics, and 72-hour terminal-state retention. It omits whether the call is read-only and whether any authorization scoping applies, but the lifecycle disclosure is well beyond typical.

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-loaded: it opens with the purpose, then lists state semantics in parentheses, with no wasted clauses. The telegraphic, list-like phrasing is compact but slightly harder to parse than fully formed sentences.

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-polling tool whose output schema is present, the description covers everything the agent needs beyond structured fields: the state semantics, the link expiry, and how to recover an expired link. The only real gap is the origin of task_no.

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?

The sole parameter task_no has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never says what it is or where to obtain it (presumably from submit_speech_task). With coverage this low, the description should compensate but adds no meaning about the parameter 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 verb and resource: it queries the status of a long-text speech synthesis task. The resource name distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_document_task and get_transcription_task, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening its 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?

Usage is only implied: the 1-hour link validity and the instruction to re-query after it expires imply a polling pattern, and the 'queued/running' state cues progress checks. However, the description never states when to call it relative to submit_speech_task or what to do for other task types, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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