audio_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the operation is non-blocking ('without holding an MCP request open'), but does not disclose whether it modifies state, what happens for unknown job IDs, or what the response contains. It lacks details on error handling, job completion statuses, or retry behavior. This is minimal for a polling tool.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no fluff. The key idea is front-loaded with 'Poll an asynchronous analysis job.' It is appropriately concise for such a straightforward operation, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return format, job state values, error scenarios, and permission requirements. An agent calling this tool would not know what to expect in the response or how to handle failures, making it insufficient for reliable use.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it mentions none. The two parameters (jobId and includeResult) are left entirely to the schema. While jobId's format is defined, its meaning and includeResult's effect on response payload are not clarified. The description adds zero value beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific action (poll) on a specific resource (asynchronous analysis job). It is clear in intention, but does not differentiate from sibling status tools like audio_session_status, though the target resource (analysis job vs. session) is distinct. The verb 'poll' is precise and helps an agent understand the tool's role.

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 description implies usage for checking long-running jobs without holding MCP request open, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any conditions to avoid using it. There's no mention of polling intervals, when to cancel, or related tools. An agent is left to infer context from the single sentence.

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