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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: the status/phase model, a 6-hour validity window for links, and wait_seconds polling semantics, though it does not describe failure behavior beyond the 'failed' status.

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 dense and front-loaded with the video status concept, then enumerates ready-state fields and polling behavior. It is somewhat long and list-heavy, but every clause adds relevant information and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return content, and it does so thoroughly: statuses, links, cover expiry, titles, captions, hashtags, script lines, duration, and posting/scheduling state. It also covers the key polling parameter, making it complete enough for an agent 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains wait_seconds well (waits while the video is being made, up to 25 seconds), but does not explicitly define video_id beyond the tool name and schema, leaving one of two parameters without added semantic context.

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 provides a specific resource (a video) and a concrete purpose: retrieving its status, production phase, links, captions, metadata, and posting state. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_videos (singular video lookup) and get_download_link (explicitly named as the alternative for downloads).

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?

It clearly explains when to use the tool for status and ready-state details, including the wait_seconds polling behavior, and explicitly redirects download-link use to get_download_link. It does not explicitly contrast with list_videos or get_script, but the usage context is clear enough for correct selection.

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