Check audio job status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it checks status, but does not mention that it's a read-only operation, possible status values, error cases, or side effects. Minimal transparency 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?

One concise sentence (14 words) that front-loads the purpose. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 status check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not hint at possible return values (e.g., 'completed', 'failed') or what happens if the noteId is invalid. Given the async nature, this information is important for an agent to handle responses correctly.

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 parameter noteId is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds 'by noteId' but does not provide additional meaning or format beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'processing status of an asynchronous audio-to-SOAP job', distinguishing it from sibling tools like transcribe_audio_to_soap which initiates the job. The tool name and description align well.

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?

Indicates the tool is for checking status after an asynchronous job, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Could be more direct about using it after transcribe_audio_to_soap returns a noteId.

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