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

With only a title annotation, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explains waiting, queued, running, done, and failed states, including queue behavior, version selection, and that failures are not charged. It also discloses expected latency and polling cadence.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then status semantics, so an agent can extract the essentials quickly. It is dense and uses several nested parentheticals, but nearly every clause adds operational value rather than repeating structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema or substantive annotation coverage, so the description must explain return semantics; it does so by defining each job state and failure behavior. For a single optional-parameter status tool, this is complete enough to call and interpret correctly.

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 schema already documents job_ids fully, and the description adds meaningful context: where the IDs come from, the wait=false relationship, and what omitting the parameter does. It does not add details such as duplicate handling, but it goes beyond the schema in useful ways.

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: retrieving where the user's generation jobs are, and explicitly connects job_ids to generate_music/derive_music with wait=false. It clearly distinguishes this status-checking tool from the generation tools it references.

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 gives explicit usage: pass jobIds from generate_music/derive_music with wait=false, or omit job_ids to list every unfinished generation on the account. It also tells the agent to check every few minutes rather than loop, which is concrete operational guidance.

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