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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declared, the description still adds real value: it states the call is free, that polling is the expected interaction pattern, and that no credits are consumed. It does not describe what the returned result contains or what status values may appear.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then polling cadence, then the exclusion. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and 'retrieve its result' is vague — status fields, job states, and any error conditions for a job are undocumented. Combined with the unexplained jobId, an agent knows when to call but not fully what it will get back.

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 single jobId parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — no indication that it is a UUID, or that it comes from a prior listing submission. The agent must infer the parameter's origin entirely.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checks a video-listing job and retrieves its result. The clause 'Does not submit a new listing' preempts confusion with a submission tool, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_videos, which the name get_video_list could be mistaken for.

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 operational guidance — poll every few seconds while the job is pending or processing — and rules out submission/spending credits. It stops short of naming which sibling actually submits the listing job, so the alternative is implied rather than stated.

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