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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context: it states it is 'Free', that tokens are refunded on failure, and describes the output fields (file_url when completed, error when failed). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and failure behavior.

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?

The description is one sentence, front-loaded with 'Free' and 'Status', and packs all essential information without fluff. Every phrase adds value: statuses, progress range, success/failure fields, and refund policy.

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?

The description covers the output fields (status, progress, file_url, error) and the refund behavior, which is sufficient for a read-only status check. An output schema exists, so return format is also available. The only missing context is how to obtain video_id, but that is likely covered by other tools in the workflow.

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 0% and the description does not mention video_id at all. The parameter is just a string, and the description fails to clarify its origin (e.g., from start_video response) or any format expectations. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states it checks the status of a single video and lists possible statuses (queued, processing, completed, failed) plus additional fields (progress, file_url, error). This distinguishes it from siblings like tegas_list_videos (multiple videos) and tegas_start_video (initiates processing). The verb is implicit but the resource and scope are explicit.

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?

The phrase 'Status of one video' implies it is for a single video, suggesting when to use it over a list tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions. It also does not contrast with tegas_wait_video, which might be a blocking alternative. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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