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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the video_url is only playable once rendered, and scenes come back in order with a defined field set. It doesn't cover error behavior for an invalid or in-progress id, keeping it from a 5.

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 core action and followed by the sibling redirect. The parenthetical field list is dense but useful for anticipating the response. Slight verbosity in the enumeration, but nothing wasted.

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 burden of explaining returns, and it does so by naming status, video_url, and the ordered scene fields. An agent knows what it will get and how to get related clip prompts via a sibling, leaving only minor gaps around error/in-progress states.

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 single video_id parameter is already documented in the schema (including its provenance from create_video/list_videos). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get one video') and enumerates the returned resource: status, playable video_url once rendered, and ordered scenes with their sub-fields. It also differentiates from the sibling get_scene_prompts by scoping that tool to a rendered scene's clip prompts.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to get_scene_prompts for clip prompts, which is real alternative-selection guidance, and 'playable video_url once rendered' signals a prerequisite state. It doesn't spell out when not to use this tool (e.g., vs list_videos for discovery), but the context is clear.

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