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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations: requeue with reset to pending up to twice plus a watchdog, a stalled progress bar is not a failure, the 'hooks' key does not exist, comments_strategy is always empty, and foreign jobs return 'not found'. It also warns that counters are stale on cache replay and must be aged via counters_source_at rather than created_at.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the failure-mode warning, then the field caveats, then the include guidance – a sensible priority order. It is dense and long for a two-parameter getter, but each sentence carries a non-obvious operational fact, 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 must carry the shape of the response, and it pre-empts the main traps: nonexistent hooks key, always-empty comments_strategy, stale counters and their timestamp. The broader result payload is only sketched through the include modes, so it is complete enough to call but not a full field map.

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 only labels include as 'default summary' and leaves job_id undocumented. The description compensates by enumerating what summary returns (scenario, hooks, hashtags, cover, tags) versus what full adds (full transcript and up to 20 frames) and its weight cost, and by implying job_id is your own job.

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?

Opening sentence states a specific verb+resource+scope: status and result of ONE of your own analysis jobs, which separates it from the list-style siblings. It never names analyses_list as the way to obtain a job_id, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 usage rules: keep polling until status=completed or failed because progress can regress on transient errors, and take include=full only when the video text is really needed because it is heavy. Missing only how to obtain a job_id in the first place.

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