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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: task statuses, that completed tasks expose output_url, that failed tasks refund credits, and that wait_seconds can block up to 45 seconds. It omits edge cases such as missing or expired task IDs, but overall it is quite transparent.

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 and compact: purpose first, then status semantics, then wait/polling behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 read tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers the important return semantics through statuses and output_url, plus polling behavior. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain the task_id source or not-found behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains wait_seconds behavior and its 45-second cap well, but it never mentions the required task_id parameter or where to obtain it.

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 clear verb and resource: get an upscale task. It is distinguishable from list_tasks by the singular retrieval framing, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain its relationship to upscale_video.

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 useful polling guidance: set wait_seconds to wait before returning, and call again if the task is still running. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of list_tasks or how task_id is obtained, so usage is only implied.

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