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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real value: 'Free' (no credits consumed by polling), the full enumeration of terminal states, that rejection charges nothing, and that approval carries burnJobId plus a video URL. It does not state auth or rate-limit behavior, but the state machine disclosure is the useful part here.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the cost signal ('Free.') and then the outcome branches. Every clause carries distinct information; the parentheticals are compact rather than wasteful.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating all four states and their payloads. What's missing is minor: how to obtain reviewId and what to do with a burnJobId once returned.

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 0% for the single reviewId parameter, so the schema alone gives no guidance. The description only indirectly signals provenance by tying the review to request_review, which lets an agent infer the ID comes from that call's response, but it never says so outright or states the ID format.

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 resource (a review's status) and its origin ('from request_review'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling request_review that creates the review. The verb is implicit ('get status') rather than explicit, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'from request_review' implies the polling flow: call request_review, then call this to check status. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no polling cadence, and no note about whether to prefer get_job instead once a burnJobId exists.

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