read translated audio preview

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, it discloses the state machine (PENDING → PROCESSING → COMPLETING → COMPLETED/FAILED), the server-side wait window of about 50 seconds, and the 'call again' pattern. It also flags billing semantics (never starts, retries or bills), the meaning of recoveryRequired, and how to resolve it via sync, which is decision-critical behavior not encoded in annotations.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the status lifecycle, then the alternatives, then the wait behavior, then error handling and next steps — a logical order for an agent. It is dense and long for a getter, but each sentence carries actionable routing or state information rather than 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the key result fields and, critically, tells the agent what to do with outputMediaUrl once COMPLETED (assets_create type=AUDIO or lipsync_create-timeline). For a polling job-status tool with three parameters, that covers everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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%, so id, wait and projectId are already documented in the schema, and the description's wait explanation largely restates the schema's own wording. It adds some framing by tying wait to the follow-a-job workflow, but no format, bounds or semantics the schema lacks.

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 and resource ("Read one translated-audio preview job by id") and enumerates the returned state fields (status, languages, error, recoveryRequired, outputMediaUrl, outputDurationSec). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the generic job tools (jobs_get / jobs_wait with kind translation_preview) rather than leaving sibling selection ambiguous.

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?

Gives the primary case (follow a translation-previews_create job), names the alternatives that read the same job, and states exclusions: on FAILED another attempt is a new paid translation-previews_create requiring approval, and on recoveryRequired no new job may be created. The wait:true polling loop is spelled out with a fallback action, so nothing critical is left to inference.

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