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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — completion surfaces a result_url (REST download address) and results remain valid for 7 days after completion, plus it is free. It omits things like what status values exist or terminal/error states.

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-loads the core action and is short. There is minor redundancy in the bilingual restatement and the duplicated free-of-charge marker ('무료입니다. [무료]'), but nothing is 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?

For a read-only, single-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input provenance, the completion signal (result_url), and the 7-day retention window. It would be complete with a hint about possible status values or polling expectations.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents job_id and its hex pattern, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning (format, where the ID comes from beyond the create call). Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check the status of a Veo video generation job') and names the sibling that produces the job (veo_jobs_create), so an agent can place it immediately in the create-then-poll workflow. 'Veo' also differentiates it from the kling_jobs_status and seedance_jobs_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?

Makes the usage context explicit: it is for jobs previously submitted via veo_jobs_create, implying it should be called after creation. It stops short of when-not guidance or polling cadence (e.g., how often to re-check while the job is running).

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