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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool polls until terminal states, attempts to inline audio downloads for Inspector or compatible clients, returns sanitized download fields, and warns against modifying returned URLs. This goes beyond the tool name and provides useful operational context.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core polling purpose is front-loaded, followed by return behavior, then a concrete URL-handling caveat. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a polling tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return contract: final project JSON, inline download behavior, sanitized fields, and URL integrity rules. It could be more explicit about how terminal states are represented or how download inclusion limits behave, but the essential guidance for selecting and using the tool is present.

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%, and the description provides no input parameter semantics. It discusses output fields like `exact_download_urls[n]` and `downloads[n].url`, but does not explain `id`, `timeout_seconds`, `poll_interval_seconds`, `max_inline_downloads`, `max_bytes_per_download`, or `include_inline_downloads`. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll an audio project until it completes, errors, is canceled, or times out.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling wait_for_image_project and wait_for_video_project tools by naming the resource type and the 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 makes the usage context clear: it is for waiting on an audio project and returning its final state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus project retrieval or creation tools.

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