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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important runtime semantics: wait=true blocks for up to 40 seconds so the result can be returned in the same response. It also clarifies what the tool returns operationally (status, minutes left, final link), which goes beyond the safety annotations.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core purpose and the wait behavior are front-loaded, and the second sentence explains the practical benefit of waiting rather than repeating schema details.

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?

The tool has an output schema and rich annotations, so the description does not need to explain return structure or safety. It covers the key remaining behavioral fact — the optional blocking wait — and clearly identifies what the run check provides, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds purpose-level meaning to wait by explaining that it waits up to 40 seconds and lets the agent give the user the link in the same answer; runId is only implied via 'started with run_template'.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: check a MakeViral run started with run_template, returning status, minutes left, and the finished video/photo link. It clearly distinguishes checking an existing run from starting one via run_template, but does not explicitly contrast with list_runs or get_creation.

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 states the core usage context: check a run that was started with run_template, and optionally use wait=true to block for up to 40 seconds and return the link in the same answer. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus list_runs or get_creation, so it stops short of 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.