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

readOnlyHint already declares it safe, but the description adds value beyond annotations: it is 'Free' (cost behavior), requires polling at ~10s cadence, and terminates at 'completed'/'failed'. Return format is only implied, not stated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the 'Free' cost signal followed immediately by scope and the polling instruction. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers cost, cadence and terminal states. It omits the full set of non-terminal statuses an agent might observe, which is a minor gap.

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 id description already explains it accepts a generationId or any song id from the batch, so the description adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 results of one generation') with clarifying scope ('all songs of the batch'), which lets an agent distinguish it from generate_music (creates) and list_songs (lists). It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: poll every ~10s and stop at 'completed' or 'failed'. This tells the agent how and when to call it, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as list_songs for retrieving results.

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