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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: unknown provider effects remain unresolved, and the call does not re-trigger provider work or synthesise speech, which tells the agent this is a pure status poll with no side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, with the return values front-loaded so the agent immediately knows what comes back. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the 'unknown provider effects remain unresolved' sentence is slightly vague and could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained; the description appropriately covers status semantics and the success payload (voice/revision). Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing, though the absence of any routing guidance against sibling voice tools is a minor gap.

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 100%, so both artistId and operationId are fully documented in the schema, including the retry-identifier semantics. The description only echoes the ownership notion ('earlier owned voice operation') without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (returns) and resource (status of an earlier owned voice operation) and enumerates the possible outcomes: pending, unknown, refused, succeeded. It implicitly distinguishes itself from studio_artist_voice_record/choose by stating it neither repeats provider work nor synthesizes speech, but it never names a sibling directly.

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 'for an earlier owned voice operation' implies the tool is a follow-up poll after a voice operation was submitted, which is usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative tool for a different need.

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