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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds real value beyond them: the ~50 s wait ceiling, the status lifecycle, and the fact that 'history' is slower for troubleshooting. It omits what happens if the job is still running when the wait window expires.

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?

One dense but tightly front-loaded paragraph that leads with the action and resource, then the wait behavior, then the endpoint. Every clause carries information; only the trailing 'GET /jobs/{jobid}.' is arguably redundant.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing return values (status lifecycle and result file fields) and documents the two optional flags. The only gap is timeout/edge-case behavior when a job never finishes during the wait window.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by spelling out what a completed job yields (assetId, download url, small-image previews) and by framing 'wait' as a bounded ~50 s hold. 'history' is given no extra explanation in the description.

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') and resource ('an image or video job by jobid'), plus the three status values it can return. 'By jobid' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling muse_list_jobs, so an agent can route correctly 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 clear usage context: jobids come from muse_generate_image / muse_generate_video, and 'wait: true' is the mode for waiting on a running job. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., polling multiple jobs vs. muse_list_jobs), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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