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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact state values, the fact that it reports current activity and ETA, and the special case of listing recent videos when job_id is omitted. It does not detail potential error conditions, but for a read-only query tool this is sufficient.

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?

The description is dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and output fields. The opening 'Step 4.' is a minor noise element that references a workflow step but does not add actionable information; otherwise every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: state values, progress details, the alternative tool for waiting, and the next step (kleo_get_result). It omits edge cases like error handling, but these are not critical for a read-only status check.

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?

The schema description for job_id already includes the 'Omit to list recent videos' behavior, so the tool description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. With schema coverage at 100%, the description correctly relies on the schema and does not need to repeat or expand parameter details.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the progress of a video, enumerating the specific state values and output fields (percent done, eta_min). It distinguishes itself from siblings by name (kleo_wait_for_video and kleo_get_result) and explicitly describes the alternate behavior when no job_id is provided (listing recent videos).

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 explicitly scoped: 'Use it for a one-off status check; to wait until the video is ready use kleo_wait_for_video instead. When the state is done, call kleo_get_result.' It also clarifies the optional job_id behavior. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over alternatives.

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