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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: it returns status and 'fresh' download links, implying links are regenerated per call rather than cached. However, it omits error/failure states, whether completed takes persist, and any polling-timing behavior, so disclosure is partial.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. The colon-delimited return summary is efficiently packed rather than padded.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back (status and download links), which is the key unknown. It falls short only on polling cadence and failure-state behavior, which are minor for a simple status-check tool.

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 0% and the single parameter order_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description partially compensates by implying the id originates from generate_sound ('a generation started with generate_sound'), but gives no format, source field, or validity details.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (a generation started with generate_sound) and names what it returns: status plus download links for finished takes. This clearly ties it to the generate_sound sibling, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other sound-retrieval siblings like get_sound or get_role_sound.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the follow-up call after generate_sound to poll a generation. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on how soon or how often to poll, and no stated alternative or when-not-to-use condition.

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