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

Adds useful behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it is free, survives reconnecting, and describes the ready-state return values (Library asset id and Open video link). It also sets latency expectations, though it omits non-ready/failure response behavior and polling cadence.

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-loads the key purpose and cost, then adds reconnect behavior, ready outputs, and latency expectations in a compact form. Every sentence provides useful operating context without unnecessary preamble.

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 simple one-parameter status tool with strong annotations, it covers purpose, cost, reconnect behavior, output when ready, and expected wait times. It is slightly incomplete because it does not describe what the response looks like while the request is still processing or what happens on failure.

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 100%, so the requestId origin and reuse guidance are already fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats that the check is by requestId, adding no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the structured field.

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+resource: checking progress of one Motion video or Add effects request by requestId. It clearly distinguishes this status-checking tool from the make/quote/redo siblings by naming both supported request types and the requestId lookup key.

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 clear context for when to use it: after submitting a Motion video or Add effects request, and specifically notes that it works after reconnecting. It does not explicitly name the make/quote siblings or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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