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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that polling is free, read-only, works without filming permission, never films or charges, and may take minutes before reaching a terminal state. It also explains what is returned: one finished film link and immutable Library/hash/byte identity once ready.

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 front-loaded with the core action and identifier guidance, then adds the most operationally important constraints: free, read-only, poll until terminal. Every sentence provides useful context with no filler.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains prerequisites, identifiers, permission behavior, cost behavior, terminal states, polling expectation, and return content. The only minor omission is quoteId, which the schema itself describes clearly.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the primary generationId path and the approved projectId/revision recovery path, but it omits the quoteId parameter and largely repeats schema-level semantics rather than adding substantial new meaning.

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: checking the progress of a film started with soclo_video_make. It clearly distinguishes polling from creation, but does not explicitly differentiate this polling tool from other video/status siblings such as soclo_video_status or soclo_editor_film_status.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use it after soclo_video_make, provide the original generationId or approved projectId plus revision, and keep polling until a terminal status. It does not name alternative tools or conditions where another status tool would be preferred, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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