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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful specifics: status values, the video_url field when ready, and that it's free to call. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key return details. No redundant words or filler.

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 simple read-only status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers behavior, return values, and usage context. No significant gaps.

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?

The schema already fully describes audition_id as 'Audition id returned by audition' (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'started with audition' aligns with this but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks an audition's status (rendering/ready/failed) and provides the video_url when ready. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'audition' (which starts the process) and 'delete_audition' or 'revise_audition'.

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 phrase 'started with audition' clarifies that the tool applies to auditions initiated via the 'audition' tool, and 'Free to call' suggests no cost concern. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but gives clear contextual timing for use.

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