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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: job duration expectations, polling cadence, and that result URLs are fetched upon completion. This is meaningful supplementary information without contradicting the 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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers practical timing guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and timing expectations. It does not detail status values or failure behavior, but those are likely documented in the output schema, and the annotations already cover safety.

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% and the jobId parameter already includes a clear description ('Job id returned by a generation tool'). The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning, so it earns the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('check a generation job's status and fetch result URLs when it's done') and identifies its resource (generation jobs). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling generation tools by focusing on status polling rather than creation.

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 provides explicit usage context by noting video jobs take 1-5 minutes and recommending polling with a few seconds between calls. It implies the tool is used after a generation job is submitted, though it does not name alternatives or state when *not* to use it.

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