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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the read-only annotations: the roughly 40-second wait threshold, the fact that still-running jobs return partial progress such as "Rendering 40%", and that a later call waits again. These details materially help an agent understand blocking and partial-result 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 front-loaded and appropriately sized, with the wait behavior and timeout details stated directly. The repeated phrase about 40 seconds is slightly redundant, but it does not obscure the key information.

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?

Covers the essential call behavior, timeout, partial progress, and resumption for a tool with no output schema. It is nearly complete, though it leaves the relationship with similarly named sibling status tools implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both job_id and wait. The description reinforces that job_id comes from a Cardboard tool, but it does not add syntax or behavior for the wait parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 action and resource: waiting on a Cardboard job and retrieving its result. It explains the trigger condition (a tool returned a job instead of a result) and gives export_video as a concrete example. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like generation_status or project_status, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 clear context for when to call it: after a Cardboard tool hands back a job in place of its result, and again later if the job is still running. It does not name when not to use it or explicitly compare with cancel_job or generation_status, but the usage condition is clear.

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