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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add value — and it does, by disclosing the return surface: status, kind, fresh download links, and loop_url only when a loop was produced. The word 'fresh' usefully signals that links are re-issued and may not be durable, though it does not spell out expiry or 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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: the trigger condition comes first, the returned fields second. Every clause carries information, though the trailing enumeration of four generator names and three output fields makes it slightly list-like rather than maximally scannable.

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?

With annotations handling safety and no output schema, the description steps in to describe the response shape, which is exactly the gap that needed filling for a single-parameter polling tool. Minor omissions remain — no indication of what status values mean or whether the agent should retry while the job is pending.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states that order_id comes from the four generation tools. The description restates the same provenance rather than adding anything new (e.g., format, whether IDs expire, or what happens with an unknown ID), 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?

Specific verb ('check') plus resource ('a generation') with the exact provenance chain named (generate_sound, generate_ambience, generate_music, change_sound). An agent can immediately tell this is the polling/status tool for jobs created by the generate_* family, distinct from get_sound/get_sound_set.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: it is the follow-up to one of the four generation tools, so the agent knows to call it after starting a job. It does not, however, state any exclusions or point to alternatives (e.g., when to use get_sound instead of polling a generation), so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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