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

Annotations already declare this a safe, closed-world read, so the description correctly spends its words on lifecycle behavior instead: polling pattern, terminal states, and that results are enumerated only once complete. It does not cover rate limiting or empty-output cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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 ordered by lifecycle: prerequisite first, terminal condition second, follow-up action last. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 polling tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer (polling, terminal states, handoff). Only edge behavior such as transient errors or status value meanings is left unstated, and those are minor.

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 jobId field already documents 'The id returned by create_audio_job.' The description only indirectly references this origin, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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 makes clear this is the status-check counterpart to create_audio_job, polled until the job reaches a terminal state, and that it enumerates outputs on success. The verb 'check' only appears in the title, not the description, but the resource and lifecycle role are unmistakable and clearly distinct from get_audio_download.

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 states exactly when to call it (after create_audio_job plus the upload), how long to keep calling (until completed or failed), and what to do next (get_audio_download for selected outputs). The alternative sibling is named rather than merely implied.

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