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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is a polling operation, what it returns (status, progress, mp4_url), and the auth requirement (free StartupHub.ai account).

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action (poll) ahead of return details and the account requirement.

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 compensates by naming the return fields (status, progress, mp4_url) and the completion condition (status is done). Combined with the sibling workflow link and auth note, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this call.

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 description coverage, where the schema already states 'jobId from generate_article_video.' Per the baseline for high coverage, the schema carries the parameter semantics and the description adds nothing new.

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 (poll) and resource (an article-to-video job), and explicitly ties itself to the sibling that creates such jobs (generate_article_video). An agent can distinguish this from generate_article_video without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use this to poll a job that generate_article_video started. This establishes the create-then-poll workflow, but it doesn't state when to stop polling or what to do on non-done statuses.

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