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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: polls up to ~45 seconds, returns audio if ready or status if still rendering, safe to call repeatedly, and only reads status. This gives the agent a complete understanding of the tool's side effects.

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?

The description is very concise with three short sentences. Each sentence adds essential information: purpose, behavior, and safety. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what is returned in both conditions (clips with audio URLs or status). It covers polling limits, idempotency, and relationship to generate_song, providing a complete picture for a 2-parameter tool.

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% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds value by specifying defaults (max_wait_seconds default 45, max 55) and linking job_id to generate_song, going beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as waiting for a song job to finish and returning the audio when ready. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_song (creates) and check_song (presumably checks status) by describing its polling behavior.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to call (after generating a song) and notes it is safe to call repeatedly because it only reads status. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like check_song for non-blocking checks, leaving some guidance implicit.

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