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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing the returned fields, including the subtle swapEngine (frozen at start) vs engineUsed (what actually ran) distinction. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether results are retained, or whether status values are terminal, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is dense but each item is informative. Slightly list-heavy phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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 return values, and it does so explicitly (status, result URL, failure reason, credits, engine fields). Missing only polling/terminal-state guidance, which is a modest gap for a single-parameter status 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% and the single jobId parameter is already documented as a UUID from the start tool. The description adds no format, sourcing, or error semantics beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Status of one of your video swap jobs') and enumerates what the response contains, which clearly separates it from ryla_generate_video_swap and ryla_video_swap_history. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the polling call for a job id returned by the start tool. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus ryla_video_swap_in_flight, ryla_video_swap_history, or ryla_generation_status, and no note on how often to poll or when to stop.

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