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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: each call waits up to 240 seconds, does not trigger reprocessing, and must not lead to duplicate submissions. This is meaningful beyond the structured annotations, though slightly more detail on polling/return behavior would be possible.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then packs the essential constraints (wait time, no reprocessing, no resubmission) into the same sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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 only one parameter, high schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description supplies everything needed for correct invocation: how to obtain job_id, the 240-second wait behavior, and anti-duplicate guidance. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, and the schema already explains that job_id must be the task ID from a user or a submit tool and not a BV/aid/video link. The tool description repeats the source of job_id but adds little parameter-level nuance beyond the schema.

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 and resource: querying the status of a Bilibili speech-to-text task via job_id. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling submit tools, which create tasks, by pointing to the job_id returned by those tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the tool (query existing job status), how to obtain the job_id (user-provided or from submit tools), and what not to do (do not trigger reprocessing, do not resubmit, do not pass BV/aid/link). This routes agents away from the submit siblings and prevents misuse.

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