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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a concrete timing bound (~30 seconds), the side effect that it fills the pending clip the run was placed for, and the progress-reporting fallback. This also explains why readOnlyHint is false for what looks like a read operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the wait mechanics, with no filler. The wait explanation packs several behaviors into one clause, which is dense but earns its space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering behavior, the description supplies the timing, the side effect, and the progress-reporting behavior an agent needs. It stops short of describing the actual shape of the returned status, which would help since there is no output schema.

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 carries the full burden. It explains `wait` well (accepts a boolean, blocks ~30s), but `id` is only implied by context and never stated as the generation identifier, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('the state of a generation') and anchors it to the producing tools generate_video and generate_image, so an agent knows exactly what it is querying. It does not distinguish itself from the other status-ish siblings (job_status, card_state, project_status), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Implies the workflow clearly: call this after generate_video/generate_image, and call it again later because 'a later call waits again'. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or guidance on choosing between this and job_status, so no exclusion guidance is offered.

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