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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. Description adds useful behavioral facts: result URL delivery on completion and 7-day result validity. Does not explain output format beyond that, but adds real value over annotations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then Korean translation and key behavioral facts. The '[무료]' at the end is slightly redundant with '무료입니다' but otherwise compact.

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?

Given one required param, full schema coverage, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, linkage to creation tool, result delivery, and retention. Enough to invoke 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 single job_id param is documented there. The description adds no format or constraint info beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('status of a Kling video generation job') and explicitly ties it to the creating sibling 'kling_jobs_create'. Easily distinguished from other *_status siblings.

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?

Clarifies it is for jobs submitted via kling_jobs_create, providing clear context. Does not state when not to use it or rate limits, but the polling relationship is implied well.

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