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

Annotations already cover the safe-read and idempotency profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing that successful work returns playback and download links and by clarifying that 'reconcile' means an existing effect is being checked and no replacement render is started.

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?

Three compact sentences with the usage condition front-loaded and no obvious filler. The jargon ('durable operation', 'reconcile') is terse but each sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with two required parameters at 0% schema coverage and a cluster of confusable motion siblings, the description is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and neither projectId nor operationId is explained in the description. The only hint is 'the original durable operation,' which loosely gestures at operationId, but an agent gets no guidance on format, source, or constraints for either required parameter.

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 title names the resource ('Motion render status') and the description frames it as reading 'the original durable operation,' so the intent is inferable but the description itself is oblique. It never states plainly that it returns render status, and it does nothing to separate it from closely named siblings like studio_motion_wait, studio_motion_result, and studio_motion_read.

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 a usage window ('after pending, timeout or unknown outcome'), which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it names no alternative tools and gives no explicit when-not guidance, leaving the agent to guess whether motion_wait or motion_result is the better call in a given state.

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