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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the state machine values, the progress field range, that result fields vary by job type, and that 'queued' reflects waiting on the analysis master tab which loads models once per browser. That is real operational insight an agent would not get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then usage, then the alternative. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the brace-and-semicolon notation and the parenthetical on the analysis master tab are slightly compressed, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the response shape, state values, progress, and job-type-specific result fields, plus polling guidance and the sibling routing rule. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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% and already documents both jobId (returned by start_* tools) and token (from connect), so the baseline would be 3. The description adds routing value by clarifying which tools actually produce jobIds valid here and which route to get_analysis_status instead.

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 ('Status of a background job') and immediately scopes it to jobs produced by named job-returning tools (generate_voiceover, verify_timeline, measure_loudness). An agent can distinguish it from get_analysis_status without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit polling cadence ('poll every few seconds while state is queued or running'), explains what 'queued' means, and names the alternative tool (get_analysis_status) with the exact condition that selects it (analysis started by start_transcription or start_visual_indexing).

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