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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description instead earns credit for non-obvious response semantics: the snapshot lives under `data.video`, not flat `data`, and `data.video.publishing` is authoritative over the legacy `video.status`. It stops short of disclosing auth needs, polling/freshness behavior, or error states for a still-generating video.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by dense, non-repetitive detail about where the payload lives and how to read publishing state. Every sentence carries information; the parenthetical '(not a flat `data` object)' is slightly clunky but warranted given no output schema.

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 return-value burden well: it specifies the nesting path, the per-platform publishing fields, `retryable`, and the legacy status enumeration with its resolution rule. It omits the generation-side status values and any polling/freshness guidance, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 0% and the description says nothing about `videoId` — not its format, not where it comes from, not what happens if it is unknown. The rule for sub-50% coverage is that the description must compensate, and here it adds zero meaning beyond the parameter's self-evident name.

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 first line gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Check video generation and publishing status'), so an agent immediately knows this is a read-only status probe rather than a mutation. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling getVideo or listVideos, which an agent might reasonably confuse with a status-check tool.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or named alternative. The note that '`retryable` determine[s] retry safety' implicitly signals this should be consulted before retryVideoPublish, and the publishing source-of-truth guidance implies post-publish checks, but both must be inferred rather than read.

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