Get job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the download_url is a signed link that works without credentials and expires in about an hour, and the call is free. It does not discuss rate limits or behavior while a job is still running.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the preview-specific return shape and the download-link caveat. The trailing 'Free.' is terse but carries real decision-relevant cost information, so no sentence is waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still flags the two things an agent would otherwise mis-handle: per-style preview results with listen links, and the signed, credential-free, time-limited download_url. With a fully documented single parameter and annotations covering safety, nothing material 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 description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter already documents its format, pattern and provenance (master_track, clean_ai_trace, preview_styles, batch_master job_ids). The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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+resource (get job status/progress/result metrics) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (after_lufs, true_peak_db, lra, platform_ready). It also scopes which job types it applies to (mastering, cleanup, preview), which cleanly separates it from siblings like check_limits or get_service_info.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the polling tool to call after master_track, clean_ai_trace or preview_styles. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of how long to wait between polls, though the sibling set makes the routing reasonably obvious.

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