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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context: the wait timeout (~50 s), the 7-day retention window, retry-while-running semantics, and the exact result shapes per job type plus failure reasons. This is well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered detail, ending with the HTTP route. Dense but every clause (result shapes, retention, retry, sibling routing) carries load.

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 carries the full burden and delivers: it describes return contents per job type, failure output, retention, and waiting behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining wait's retry consequence ('call again while it is still running') and clarifying that jobid comes from a song/edit/remix/stems/speech tool.

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 (read/get) and resource (one job), and enumerates the job types it covers (song, edit, remix, stems, speech). It also names the sibling mureka_list_jobs and contrasts scope ('shows what is running now'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Gives explicit routing to the sibling mureka_list_jobs for listing current jobs, plus operational guidance on the wait flag and retry ('call again while it is still running'). Strong contextual guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or its relation to mureka_get_song.

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