check_song

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the outcome states: 'Returns the audio URLs if complete, an error if it failed, or 'processing' if still rendering.' It also discloses the non-blocking nature ('no waiting'). The description doesn't mention auth or side effects, but for a read-only status check this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action and key differentiators ('single check with no waiting') are front-loaded, and every clause adds value by specifying behavior and return outcomes.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what happens: returns URLs on success, error on failure, 'processing' if pending. It also mentions the non-blocking behavior. The sibling names (generate_song, wait_for_song) provide additional context, making this description complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the job_id parameter is fully described in the schema ('The job_id returned by generate_song'). The description only reiterates that the tool works 'by job_id' without adding additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the current status of a song job by job_id'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), specifies the resource ('song job'), and differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing 'a single check with no waiting', which distinguishes it from wait_for_song.

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 conveys usage context by contrasting this tool with waiting: 'a single check with no waiting'. This implies it should be used for one-shot status checks rather than blocking until completion, effectively differentiating it from wait_for_song. However, it stops short of explicitly stating 'use this when you want to poll' or naming the alternative for waiting scenarios.

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