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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it enumerates the three terminal states (pending, completed, failed), the expected latency ('a few minutes'), and the polling cadence, which the annotations cannot express. It does not mention rate limits or job expiry, hence not 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose/provenance, polling cadence, and terminal-state outcomes. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter polling tool with an output schema, everything the agent needs to act is present: how to obtain jobId, how long to wait between calls, and what each terminal status yields. The output schema already handles return structure, so no further detail is required.

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 jobId parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The jobId returned by generateVideoTool'. The description repeats that provenance without adding format, lifetime, or validation detail, so the baseline of 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 (check status of a video generation) and anchors it to the originating sibling 'generateVideoTool' via the jobId. An agent can immediately distinguish this polling tool from generateVideoTool or generateImageTool without opening any schema.

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 concrete operational guidance: the tool is used after generateVideoTool returned a jobId, and while pending the agent should wait ~30 seconds and re-call. It stops short of naming explicit exclusions (e.g. 'do not use for image jobs' or 'do not call generateVideoTool again'), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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