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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds real value by enumerating what the response contains (stage, progress, chapters, scenes, pictures, final link), which tells an agent this is suitable for polling. It does not say what happens for a not-yet-started or failed video, which is the main behavioral gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned fields following. It is dense but every clause names a distinct return field; slight readability cost from the long comma-chained list.

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, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns and does so concretely, which is exactly what a read tool on an async pipeline needs. Missing only edge-state behavior (incomplete, failed, or unauthorized videos).

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 explains where videoId comes from (list_my_videos or the tool that started the video). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the ownership scoping, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (gets a ClipFlux video) and scopes it to 'one of the signed-in user's' videos, which implicitly separates it from the list_my_videos sibling. It does not name a sibling or contrast with get_look/quote_video, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Ownership scoping and the phrase 'once it is done' hint that this is a per-video status/inspection call, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that list_my_videos is the discovery step and this is the drill-down.

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