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

Annotations only cover safety (read-only, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the full status enum with polling semantics, what each terminal state returns (outputs/result_meta vs error), and that output URLs are permanent CDN links. That is rich polling-behavior context the schema does not carry.

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 with the core action, then status semantics, then return shapes, then polling guidance. Every sentence carries new information; 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 carries the burden of return values and does so well (status enum, outputs, result_meta, error). Minor gap: no explicit contrast with the sibling status tools to route the agent 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents tool_job. The description restates that it is the hashid from the creating tools but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the status of a free tool job') and it names the exact id source and the producing siblings (transcribe, edit_video, convert_media, extract_thumbnails, edit_image). It is clearly distinguishable from get_render_status, get_ugc_job_status, and get_video_status.

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?

Gives concrete polling cadence ('every 5-10s'), states that processing means keep polling and that failed/completed are terminal, which is exactly when-to-use/when-to-stop guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling status tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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