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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds rich behavioral detail: live `progress`/`progress_step` fields, terminal statuses, per-status payloads (`video_url`, `share_url`, `result_meta`, `error`), and a recommended polling cadence. No contradiction with 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?

Every sentence adds operational value—statuses, progress semantics, terminal payloads, and polling timing—without redundant fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and id source.

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 stand in for it; it covers all statuses, live progress, success/failure payloads, and polling behavior, enough for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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?

The schema fully documents `ugc_job`; the description reinforces it with the useful facts that it's a hashid and is returned by generate_ugc. That's a small improvement over the schema, so above the baseline but not maximal.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('status of a UGC generation job'), and the exact input (ugc_job hashid), and it enumerates the possible status values. It's immediately distinguishable from other status tools like get_video_status and get_tool_job_status because the UGC-specific lifecycle is spelled out.

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 gives explicit user-facing guidance: poll every 10-15s, stop on terminal states, and report progress. It also names generate_ugc as the source of the job id and marks rendering as in-flight, so an agent knows exactly when to keep polling vs. stop.

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