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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact — "single-shot" implies it does not poll/wait, unlike the wait_for_* siblings — but says nothing about the returned state values or whether a job may be pending.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than through efficient coverage of the essentials.

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 2-param, no-output-schema tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotation detail on return values, the description needs to carry more weight than one parenthetical. It leaves the purpose of `tool`, the expected state output, and the distinction from sibling status/wait tools unaddressed.

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% for both required parameters. The description never mentions `tool` or `id`, so it does not compensate. Worse, the mismatch between the "audio" framing and the broad `tool` enum leaves the meaning of the `tool` parameter unclarified.

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?

It names a verb-and-resource pair ("generation status check"), which is clearer than a bare "status", but it is prefixed with "audio" while the required `tool` enum spans image, video, music, avatar, etc. The result is a name/description that under-describes the actual scope, so an agent cannot be confident what it queries.

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?

"(used by the preview UI)" hints this is an internal-facing helper, but there is no guidance on when an agent should call it versus the many siblings (video_status, image_status, clipping_status, wait_for_*) or what distinguishes those tools from this one. No when-not conditions are given.

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