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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing response behavior: returns `status`, `outputs` with CDN URLs on completion, and `error` on failure. It also explains the polling behavior and expected duration. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior without relying solely on 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?

The description is concise and structured: it defines the purpose, enumerates possible statuses, outlines response fields, and provides polling guidance in three clear paragraphs. No wasted words; each sentence adds information.

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?

All necessary information for correct invocation is present: the tool's purpose, the parameter's source, response structure, and polling advice. Given no output schema, the description covers return values adequately. The tool's complexity is low with a single parameter, so this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented. The description adds value by explaining what the parameter is (hashid from transcribe) and its role in the tool's purpose midpoint. It doesn't add format details but the schema already covers that.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving the status of a free tool job by its `tool_job` id. It specifies the resource (tool job) and the action (get status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `get_render_status` and `get_ugc_job_status` which are for different job types. The terminal states are also defined.

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 states when to use this tool: when polling a job created by `transcribe` (implied by the id source). It instructs to poll every 5-10s and stop polling on terminal states, providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives, but the tool is uniquely tied to free tool jobs, making it unambiguous among siblings.

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