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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: the result_url is a REST download address, results remain valid for 7 days after completion, and the operation is free. It does not cover polling behavior or error states, keeping it from a 5.

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 definition is front-loaded with the English purpose and then provides Korean translation and completion details. There is minor redundancy (free is stated twice, and the Korean repeats the English), but the information is well organized and not bloated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry output-related context. It does so by explaining that a completed job returns a result_url and that results are valid for 7 days. It leaves out status values or polling frequency, but is otherwise sufficient for a status-check 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single job_id parameter is documented in the schema with a pattern and description. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (Check) and resource (status of a Seedance video generation job) and directly ties the job to the seedance_jobs_create sibling tool. This lets an agent distinguish it from other job-status tools like kling_jobs_status or veo_jobs_status without opening the 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?

The description explicitly says the job is 'submitted via seedance_jobs_create', giving clear context for when to use it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, which is the only missing piece for a 5.

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