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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a payload behavior: video_id is absent until the download finishes and the file is in storage. It does not describe other status fields or terminal-state values.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the action ('Poll a YouTube import job') is front-loaded ahead of the qualifying detail about video_id.

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 usefully fills the most important return-value gap by explaining when video_id appears. Minor gaps remain: no enumeration of statuses or failure states and no polling-interval guidance, but the essentials for calling this tool correctly are present.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is documented in the schema as coming from import_youtube, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Poll a YouTube import job'), which distinguishes it from the generic get_status and the parallel get_clip_status / get_music_video_status siblings by naming the YouTube-import resource. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling is the alternative.

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?

'Poll' implies repeated invocation until completion, and the second sentence implies that until video_id appears the job is not yet done, so the stop condition is inferable. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to call this versus get_status, nor on polling cadence or how to treat terminal failures.

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