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

Annotations already establish a safe, closed-world read, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real context: a prerequisite plan requirement, the meaning of `needs_attention` (paused before further spend), and the `message` field explaining why. It does not cover polling cadence or how long results remain available, which is the remaining gap.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and the enumerated status/step vocabularies, both of which are high-value. The parenthetical lists are dense but each value earns its place by telling the agent what to expect; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers prerequisites, terminal-state handling, and next-step routing. Its restatement of return fields is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but the semantic gloss on each status value is genuinely useful.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already states that `runId` is the value returned by `create_episode`. The description repeats that provenance but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource — follow a Series Maker run created by `create_episode` — and enumerates the exact status and step values the tool reports. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from siblings like `get_project_status` or `get_export_status` because the scope is explicitly the episode-creation run.

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 clear downstream routing: once status is done, `pid` is the editor project and should be exported with `export_video`, and `needs_attention` means the run halted before spending more. It also states the prerequisite of an active Revid plan. It does not explicitly contrast with the other status tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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