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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The word 'single-shot' adds real value by implying a non-blocking poll in contrast to the wait_for_* siblings, but the description stops short of saying whether the call returns immediately or what status values can come back. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with the core purpose. The trailing parenthetical is low-value and could be dropped, but there is no padding or repetition.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description carries the full burden and falls short. It omits what the status response contains, how pending/complete/failed states are surfaced, and how this poll relates to the wait_for_* tools, leaving an agent unable to use it confidently.

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 description says nothing about either parameter. It does not explain that 'id' is a generation identifier nor why the 'tool' discriminator is needed on an audio-named endpoint. The 12-value enum is visible in the schema, but the meaning of the fields is left entirely undocumented.

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 states a verb+resource ('generation status check') and adds a scoping qualifier ('single-shot'), so an agent gets the general idea. But it never resolves how it differs from the sibling image_status, video_status, and clipping_status tools, nor why an 'audio_status' tool accepts an enum spanning image, video, music, and voiceover. The parenthetical '(used by the preview UI)' is implementation noise rather than clarification.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives such as wait_for_video, wait_for_image, or video_status. The only contextual hint, '(used by the preview UI)', arguably steers the agent away from the tool rather than telling it when to call it.

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