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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), and the description adds the useful wait-ceiling and polling instruction. However, it never says what happens when max_seconds elapses without completion — whether it errors, or returns the still-processing video. For a blocking/wait tool that timeout outcome is the single most important behavioral fact, and it is absent.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the operation and its return, the second defines the polling loop. The primary constraint (max_seconds/default) is front-loaded with 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden but only says 'returns it like get_video,' which requires the agent to consult that sibling. Combined with the missing timeout-outcome behavior, the definition is adequate but leaves a real gap for a wait/poll tool with a 55-second ceiling.

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 100%: video_id and the 5–55 range with default 50 are fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates max_seconds and its default, adding no syntax or semantic nuance beyond it; 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 and resource ('waits ... for a video to finish') plus the wait semantics (max_seconds, default 50). The clause 'returns it like get_video' explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_video, so an agent can choose between them 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?

'Call again while status is queued or processing' tells the agent this is a polling loop rather than a one-shot read, which is the key usage decision. It never states the inverse (use get_video for a single non-blocking snapshot), so the contrast is implied rather than spelled out.

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