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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the output shape varies by state (processing vs. done vs. failed), download URLs expire after 24 hours, and the result explains what the edit changed and what was excluded and why. This is exactly the state-dependent disclosure an agent needs before polling.

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?

Four sentences, each mapped to a distinct status branch, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The middle sentences are dense and slightly run-on but no sentence is filler given there is no output schema to carry the return contract.

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 must carry the return-value contract, and it does so across all three status states, including URL expiry and exclusion explanations. Authentication is already handled by the api_key schema description, so nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 100% and the description adds no parameter-level detail (no polling interval, no relationship between order_id and api_key). With the schema fully documented, the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Status of a podcast editing order') and goes further by enumerating what the status payload contains per state. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling (barevalue_list_orders), though the singular order_id framing implies the distinction.

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 is only implied: the mention that 'while processing it reports the current step, percentage and estimated seconds remaining' signals a polling use case, and the 'failed' branch hints at follow-up actions. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus barevalue_list_orders, barevalue_request_revision, or barevalue_feedback, so the agent must infer context.

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