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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that the call blocks for up to 55 seconds, that it must be re-invoked on queued/processing, and it enumerates all three queue reasons (plan_limit, render_capacity, generator_capacity) with what position and estimated_wait_seconds mean.

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 core action and the polling instruction before the queue-reason taxonomy. The long parenthetical enumeration of the three queue states is dense but justified by the 'Tell the user' directive; slightly heavier than necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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 compensates by defining the return shape by reference ('returns it like get_video') and by explaining the queue-state fields the agent will see. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result is missing.

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% and the description's parenthetical '(default 50)' simply restates the schema's own '(5–55, default 50)'. It adds no format or behavior detail beyond the binding, so 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 up to max_seconds for a video to finish') and explicitly anchors the result to a named sibling ('returns it like get_video'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_video 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?

Explicitly prescribes the polling loop: 'Call again while status is queued or processing.' It also tells the agent what to relay to the user while waiting. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., prefer get_video for a non-blocking single check), so it misses the top tier.

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