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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: status is pending, success, or failed, and a failed task has credits refunded. With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false already covering the safety profile, this is a solid disclosure of outcome semantics.

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 short sentences with the purpose first and the status details second. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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 read-only status tool, the description covers the important return states and what happens on failure. The task_id source is handled by the schema, so the only modest gap is the lack of explicit routing against sibling status tools.

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%, and the task_id schema already explains that the value comes from animate_photo, create_video, or edit_video. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action as checking a generation task and clarifies the possible status outcomes, including video_url on success and credits refunded on failure. It is clear enough to identify the tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish video tasks from the sibling get_image status tool.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Check a generation task' and the status lifecycle. It does not explicitly say to call this after create_video/animate_photo/edit_video, nor does it mention alternatives such as get_image or list_my_videos.

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