Venice Music Retrieve / Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the async behavior (returns until COMPLETED), the endpoint, and both auth methods (x402 wallet auth, API key). However, it doesn't explain what happens on failure, retry semantics, or the response structure of the status check.

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?

Three sentences, compact and dense with useful info covering endpoint, async behavior, and auth. Slightly dense syntax ('Async until COMPLETED') but no waste. Could be marginally clearer about the body example.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (async status, multiple auth modes, 3 params, no output schema), and the description covers the endpoint, auth, and async nature. However, the third parameter (delete_media_on_completion) is undocumented in both schema and description, and with no output schema or annotation, important behavior like error handling and COMPLETED payload shape is unexplained.

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 compensate. It names queue_id and model in the POST body and explains the purpose of queue_id (identifying queued job), but provides no detail on the body format beyond naming the fields, and doesn't mention delete_media_on_completion parameter at all.

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 checks status of a queued music job via POST /v1/audio/retrieve, distinguishing it from siblings like venice_music_generate (creation) and venice_music_complete. 'Check status' is a specific verb+resource pairing that aligns with the 'Status' title.

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 this is for checking already-queued music jobs (async until COMPLETED), giving context on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, though the distinction from generate/complete siblings is reasonably clear.

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