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

Annotations already cover the safe, idempotent read profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: the render is 'private', the response includes error and recovery information, and non-terminal states must not be read as success. It does not say how long a render typically takes or whether repeated polling is rate-limited.

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 what is checked and what comes back, then follows with the state and resubmission cautions. Every sentence carries an instruction, though the phrase 'errors and recovery guidance' is slightly loose about what the tool actually returns.

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 admirably covers return content (URL, errors, recovery hints) and terminal-state distinctions for a two-parameter read tool. It falls short only on polling/timeout expectations and on directing the agent to the error-diagnosis sibling.

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 50%: workspaceId is thoroughly documented in the schema, but jobId has no description at all. The line 'Keep workspaceId from creation' reinforces the schema's requirement to reuse the creation workspace, and the phrasing implies jobId comes from the creation call, but neither parameter's syntax or sourcing is spelled out beyond that.

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 ('Check the requested private render') plus what it returns: output URL, errors, and recovery guidance. It names review_video_project as the playback path, but does not mention the sibling diagnose_render_error, which is the obvious next step on failure, leaving that boundary implicit.

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 clear operational rules: keep workspaceId from creation, treat queued/rendering as not complete, and do not auto-resubmit on failure. What is missing is routing to the appropriate recovery tool (diagnose_render_error) once an error is seen, and any guidance on polling cadence or when to stop checking.

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