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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read only; no spend,' and 'no spend' adds a small amount of wallet-safety context not spelled out by the annotations, but it says nothing about return timing, polling, or failure states for a status-check tool.

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 tool purpose and safety note are front-loaded and brief, which is good, but the trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' is a cryptic low-value reference that a reader cannot act on and dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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 status-polling tool with a nested parameters object, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description should indicate what status info is returned and whether to poll. None of that is present, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter — the 'Fields: soclo://...' line is a doc URI, not parameter guidance. The critical nested videoId, plus confirm/requestId semantics, are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get ad video processing status'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_ad_videos, upload_ad_video, and delete_ad_video. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any note that it is typically polled after an upload to check encoding readiness. 'Read only; no spend' hints at the operation type but does not tell an agent when to reach for this tool.

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