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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content: that reading returns delegated tasks and open decisions, and that it will not retry or restart the underlying work – a guarantee the annotations alone do not convey. It stops short of describing behavior on an unknown or unauthorized work_id.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause (open decisions, delegated tasks, no retry/restart) adds distinct information. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the single parameter is fully documented. The remaining gap is failure behavior (nonexistent or unauthorized work_id) for what is a simple, well-bounded read tool.

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 work_id carries a strong inline description ('opaque authorized product identifier; never proof of access'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the authorization framing with 'authorized work status' but adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and resource (work status) and enumerates what comes back: open decisions and delegated tasks. It is distinguishable from cancel_work, wait_for_work or native.continue_work by its read-only scope, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is implied by 'read current authorized work status' and constrained by 'without retrying or restarting it', which steers an agent here when it only wants observation. However, no alternative is named for the retry/restart case (e.g. continue_work, native.resume_film_work), leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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