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

With no annotations given, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that processing runs client-side, that the preview proxy is always built, and that the tool returns a structured status object. It also explains the status enum values. While it doesn't mention auth or side effects, for a read-only status tool this is adequate transparency.

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 verbose and includes redundant statements (e.g., 'Processing never runs on the server' followed by a detailed client-side explanation, and the return format is described twice). While the structure is logical—purpose, processing details, return schema, use cases—it could be tightened substantially without losing clarity.

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 description is complete for a status-query tool: it fully explains the return object, the meaning of each status value, and how to interpret the results. It also connects to related tools (transcribe_clip, detect_text_regions) and explains the mandatory proxy step. No essential context is missing, though it could be more concise.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters: projectId and clip (with the filename format and omit-to-report-all behavior). The tool description repeats this information without adding significant new meaning. It does contextualize how the parameters affect the returned data, but the schema coverage is already 100%, so the description adds only marginal value.

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 the tool's exact purpose: reporting whether a clip (or all clips) has gone through the video-processing pipeline. It enumerates the specific steps (proxy build, audio split, transcription, OCR) and gives concrete use cases, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use it to know whether transcribe_clip / detect_text_regions will return data, and to surface an unprocessed state.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and ties it to sibling tools. It also clarifies the optional vs. required parameters, though it doesn't delve into alternative query tools.

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