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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses that the call works even without the filming permission, never films or charges, and takes minutes to reach terminal state. That is real added context. It does not describe behavior on an unknown or stale generationId (error vs empty status), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Purpose and lookup key are front-loaded in the first sentence, and polling guidance follows logically. Some redundancy creeps in: freeness is asserted three times ('free', 'never charges', 'it costs nothing'), which could be trimmed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return value (one finished film link plus its immutable Library/hash/byte identity once ready) and enumerates terminal states. Error/unknown-id handling is the only notable omission for a polling tool.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the same key relationships (generationId primary, projectId+revision as exact fallback). It reinforces but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline for high 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read the status of a film started with soclo_video_make') and names the producing sibling, so the agent immediately knows this is the status companion to the filming call. It also names soclo_video_poll as an equivalent free read, distinguishing it from the many other status tools in the sibling list.

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?

Explicit about lookup keys (original generationId, or exact approved projectId+revision) and about cadence: keep polling until a terminal status (ready/delivered/complete or failed/refused) rather than assuming failure because filming takes minutes. That is a concrete when-to-use and how-to-behave instruction an agent can act on directly.

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