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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the call blocks up to ~40 seconds, degrades to status 'processing' with progress if unfinished, and returns structurally different payloads for preliminary vs full checks. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs to plan around a potentially blocking call.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then waiting behavior, then return shapes. Every clause carries information the caller needs; nothing is restated from the title or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does, distinguishing the preliminary result (score range, hook checks) from the full result (exact score, category scores, issues with timecodes and fixes). Combined with the ID sourcing and blocking behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating all three sources of analysis_id (the schema mentions only two) and by explaining the wait semantics in terms of observable outcome ('waits up to ~40 seconds... if it is still running, returns status processing'), not just the parameter's 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the status or result of a Quelta analysis') and narrows scope by keying on analysis_id. It also names the sibling tools that produce that ID (analyze_video_ad, list_my_analyses, upgrade_to_full_review), so an agent can place it precisely in the workflow rather than confusing it with the analysis-starting tools.

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?

Clear context: call this after starting an analysis, using an ID obtained from analyze_video_ad, upgrade_to_full_review, or list_my_analyses. It does not spell out an explicit when-not condition (e.g. don't poll repeatedly when a webhook/callback exists), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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