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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds two useful traits beyond them: the tool is free (cost signal) and it is meant to be polled repeatedly until completion, which explains why idempotency matters here. It stops short of describing terminal failure states or retention of results.

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 terse sentences with zero redundancy; the cost signal is front-loaded and the polling action follows immediately. Nothing could be cut 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the 'done is true' reference aligns with the expected completion field. Combined with the annotations and the named sibling, an agent has enough to call this correctly; minor gaps remain around job expiry or error states.

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 0% for the single required jobId, but the description identifies its origin ('a job created by blackwood_audio_transcribe'), which tells the agent where the value comes from. It adds no format, length, or expiry detail, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 resource (status and result of a job) plus its origin tool by name, and distinguishes itself from blackwood_audio_transcribe, the tool that creates the job. An agent can identify the polling counterpart without opening either schema.

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?

'Poll until done is true' gives explicit invocation guidance and implies the workflow order (create via blackwood_audio_transcribe, then poll here). It does not explicitly state the negative case (e.g. not to call without a jobId), but the routing context is clear.

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