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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the 'ready' state gates whether upload_id is usable, and analysis_error is flagged as an 'optional paid analysis', a cost signal not present in structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary single-item read and its fallback, then two tight clauses on return-field meaning. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description adds the two fields an agent would actually act on (upload_id readiness, analysis_error). For a trivial one-optional-parameter read tool, nothing needed to call it correctly 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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does, defining import_id as the selector and stating that omitting it lists recent imports. It is not a zero-param tool, so the baseline 4 applies rather than a default-max; the uuid format stays schema-only.

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 ('Read one import's progress') and immediately adds the dual mode ('omit it to recover recent imports'). An agent can tell this is a read surface for video imports rather than a mutation tool like control_video_import, though the siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

The omit-import_id case is genuine invocation guidance, so the two usage modes are implied clearly. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_uploads, control_video_import, or complete_upload, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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