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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it names the three status values and the audio_url field that only appears on SUCCESS, plus the guard against fetching audio prematurely.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most actionable constraint (don't fetch audio before SUCCESS) is placed last as a clear imperative. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, the description correctly compensates by documenting the status enum and conditional audio_url, which is what an agent needs to interpret the result. It stops short of describing polling cadence or retry behavior, but the schema's wait_seconds field partially covers that ground.

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 coverage is 67%, in the middle band, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. job_id in particular has no description anywhere, and the description never mentions job_type, wait_seconds, or the polling semantics the wait_seconds field hints at.

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 (check) and resource (a speech job created earlier) plus the payload returned, so the intent is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_job_detail or get_localization_status, leaving the agent to infer which status tool to pick.

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?

"Check a speech job created earlier" implies the post-creation polling context, and "Never guess or fetch an audio URL before SUCCESS" gives a real precondition. However, it never names an alternative (get_job_detail for richer info, list_recent_jobs for discovery) or states when this tool is the wrong choice.

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