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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is low. The description still adds useful context beyond them: the default-to-most-recent-shoot behavior and the fact that status is pull-only ('nothing can push that into this chat on its own'), which tells the agent not to wait for a notification.

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 resource and the fields returned, followed by the default and the usage trigger. The trailing clause about push is slightly conversational but carries real information, so little is 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 describing returns, and it does: take count, rendering progress, and the finished video with its hook and CTA. Combined with the default behavior and usage trigger, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already explains 'a specific shoot id from create_video_shoot; omit for the most recent one'. The description restates the default without adding format or edge-case detail, so it is baseline.

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 names a specific verb+resource (status of a 'guided video shoot') and enumerates what the status contains: takes filmed, rendering state, finished video with hook and CTA. That is far more concrete than generic siblings like get_generation_status or get_task_status, though it never explicitly names those siblings to disambiguate.

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 gives an explicit trigger — 'Call this when the user asks how their video is coming along' — and states the default behavior when no id is supplied. It stops short of naming when *not* to use it (e.g. image or generation status belong elsewhere), so no alternatives are offered.

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