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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the tool waits for completion and only returns final results when ready, which is not visible in the annotations or schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the two key behaviors—waiting and returning final results—with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema present and a single fully described required parameter, the description need not explain return values. The wait-for-results behavior, combined with the safety annotations and clear schema, gives the agent everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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 job_id parameter already has a clear description ('Search identifier returned by the search tool'). The tool description does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb phrase, 'Wait for a pending video search and return its final results,' which clearly identifies both the operation and the resource. It distinguishes this tool from vivu_search_videos by focusing on retrieving completed results rather than initiating a search.

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 'pending video search' and the job_id schema description ('Search identifier returned by the search tool') clearly imply this is called after a search has been launched. It communicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name vivu_search_videos as the alternative or state when not to use it.

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