get_audio

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the payload contents (billing, credit requirements, signed outputs) in the absence of an output schema; it stops short of noting whether signed URLs expire or what happens for a non-owned/unknown id.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, scope, and return contents with zero 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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety and which lacks an output schema, the description does the important remaining work of naming the returned fields. Only the id semantics and signed-output lifetime are left unaddressed.

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 single 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. 'One owned audio job' only vaguely implies the id identifies an audio job — no format, source of the id (e.g. from create_audio), or error behavior for foreign ids is given.

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 ('one owned audio job') and enumerates what it returns: status, billing, required credits, signed outputs. The 'one owned' scoping implicitly separates it from list_audio, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by the returned fields — an agent can infer it is for checking a job's state and cost after creation. It never says when to prefer wait_audio, settle_audio, or download_audio, nor when this call is unnecessary.

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