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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description usefully adds the polling cadence and the two terminal states. It omits blocking/long-running behavior and what happens when polling stops without a terminal state (maxAttempts ceiling of 180 is never mentioned). The stated fixed 'every 30 seconds' also sits awkwardly against a configurable intervalSeconds parameter.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the terminal conditions, but the second sentence merely restates the first ('until COMPLETED or FAILED' appears twice). The space saved by cutting the redundancy could have documented maxAttempts or timeout semantics.

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?

A blocking polling tool with no output schema, no annotation detail, and zero parameter documentation leaves key questions unanswered: what is returned on timeout, what statuses exist beyond COMPLETED/FAILED, and what the result payload contains. Given the tool's complexity and silent 0% schema coverage, the description is under-built.

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 three parameters, so the description carries full burden and only partially discharges it — it implies the interval behavior but never explains intervalSeconds, maxAttempts, or generationId. The hard-coded '30 seconds' actually obscures the fact that the interval is configurable between 2 and 60.

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 and resource: polls music generation status until a terminal state (COMPLETED/FAILED). This clearly separates it from create_music, but it never distinguishes itself from one-shot status checkers like audio_status, which an agent could easily confuse for a music job.

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 only implied by the 'poll until COMPLETED or FAILED' framing — an agent can infer it goes after create_music. There is no explicit 'use this after submitting a music job' statement and no exclusion such as 'use audio_status for a single non-blocking check'.

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