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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is safe to call repeatedly, must respect a 10-second polling interval, and only returns output files once the job completes. It does not detail failure responses, but this is a minor gap given the output schema exists.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the critical usage timing ('after create_free_audio_job'), then gives the rate limit, stopping condition, and return content in a logical order.

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 an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers when to call, how often, when to stop, and what the successful response contains. The only missing detail is what a failed job returns, but this is likely in the output schema.

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 jobId as 'The id returned by create_free_audio_job' with full coverage. The description reinforces this by mentioning create_free_audio_job, but adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('check'), a clear resource ('free audio job'), and the concrete outcome (lists output files with download links). It distinguishes itself from sibling polling tools by explicitly tying to create_free_audio_job and the free-audio pipeline.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after create_free_audio_job and upload, with a rate limit ('no more than every 10 seconds'), and a stopping condition ('until the job is completed or failed'). This leaves no ambiguity about the intended polling pattern.

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