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

Beyond read-only annotations, the description discloses a concrete polling rate limit ('no more than every 10 seconds'), the terminal states ('completed or failed'), and what the completed response contains (output files with download links). These are meaningful operational details for correct invocation.

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 sentences with no filler. The polling cadence and lifecycle condition are front-loaded, and the return-content note is included only where useful.

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 simple one-parameter polling tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral gaps: when to call, how often, when to stop, and what completion yields. Nothing essential is missing.

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 single jobId parameter is already documented in the schema as the id returned by create_free_audio_job. The description reinforces that same relationship but adds no additional syntax or constraints beyond the structured field.

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 clearly implies polling a free audio job created by create_free_audio_job, and states it runs until the job completes or fails. It does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling get_audio_job, but the 'free' workflow context and named create_free_audio_job make its purpose clear.

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 context: call after create_free_audio_job and the upload, poll no more than every 10 seconds, and stop when completed or failed. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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