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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: that this blocks/polls until a terminal state. It omits what happens on timeout or exhausted attempts, so the added context 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 with the action and terminal states front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse given three undocumented parameters, but there is zero waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a completed/failed poll returns and how long the tool waits, but it does neither. Combined with 0% parameter documentation for a 3-parameter blocking tool, an agent lacks enough to call it reliably.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing: it never explains maxAttempts, intervalSeconds, or which ID to pass. The polling semantics hint at generationId's role but no format or defaults are given.

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 (Poll) and resource (music status) plus the two terminal conditions (COMPLETED/FAILED), which lets an agent tell it apart from create_music and audio_status. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource noun is distinctive enough.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus audio_status or the other wait_for_* tools, and no prerequisite such as needing a generationId produced by create_music. The polling-until-done intent is only inferrable from the wording.

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