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

Annotations already establish it as a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing what comes back (status, a viewable view_url when finished, or the error on failure) and by warning about polling cadence / rate pressure, which annotations do not cover.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus identifier rule is front-loaded before the return values and polling advice. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 summarizes the return shape (status, view_url, error) and gives polling cadence, which covers most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing terminal states or expected job duration, a minor gap for a polling 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 both parameter descriptions already explain the id provenance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates task_id's source and that either id form is acceptable, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 (check status) plus resource (video jobs) and pins the accepted identifiers to their origin (task_id from generate_video, or job_id). This scopes it apart from the generic check_job_status and from the audio/depth-map status siblings without the agent needing to open a 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 concrete operational guidance: poll every ~20s and do not loop rapidly, and implies it is called after generate_video. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over check_job_status or when polling should stop (terminal conditions).

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