Pipeline status

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and openness (openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the work is asynchronous and survives client-side timeouts, and results returned are partial ("outputs so far"). It stops short of saying whether the call errors on an unknown or expired id, or whether polling is expected.

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: the first defines the operation and its return shape, the second gives the motivating scenario. Nothing is repeated and the core definition is front-loaded.

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 a single documented parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs, including the async-continuation nuance that annotations cannot express. The only minor omission is failure behavior for an invalid or unknown pipeline id.

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 schema's own parameter text already explains that the id comes from `execution_id` returned by segment or generate_samples. The description's "by id" adds no format, validation, or provenance detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("look up an Audial pipeline by id") and enumerates what comes back: state, each step, outputs so far. It is distinguishable from the generation siblings it names, though it never contrasts itself with list_results, the closest potential overlap.

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 an explicit triggering condition — use this when segment or generate_samples timed out — and explains why (the pipeline keeps running server-side). It names alternatives in the negative direction but offers no exclusions or guidance on when to prefer list_results instead.

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