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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the HTTP verb (GET), that it is free, and that no Skyfire token or x402 USDC payment is required — meaningful cost/auth context that a caller must know. It stops short of describing pending-vs-finished response behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core action (poll for the finished track) is front-loaded, and the cost/auth caveat follows as supporting detail.

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 and no annotations exist, so the description must handle behavior on its own. Polling semantics are implied but the description never says what is returned while the track is unfinished or how completion is signaled, leaving an agent guessing about the poll loop.

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 100% and the single songId parameter is fully documented (including its origin in skyfire_create_music). The description's reference to a 'Create Music songId' reinforces but does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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'), a specific resource ('a Create Music songId'), and the goal ('the finished track'). This clearly separates it from the sibling creation tools (create_music, skyfire_create_music) without the agent needing to open a 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?

Usage context is clear: you poll a songId that resulted from a prior create step, reinforced by the param description 'songId returned by skyfire_create_music.' It gives a strong positive trigger but states no explicit exclusion or termination condition (e.g., stop polling once finished).

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