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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the polling cadence and the fact that the response content changes from progress to a final URL as rendering completes. It does not state error/edge behavior when no render exists, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the polling constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming progress and the final URL, plus the polling cadence. It is adequate for a single-parameter read tool, though it omits what 'progress' actually looks like or what happens before generation begins.

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 there is only one parameter, whose uuid format and pattern are fully specified in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific resource (a project's video generation) and precisely what is returned: progress and the finished video's URL. It implicitly distinguishes itself from start_video_generation and resume_video_generation, though it never names those siblings 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?

It gives an explicit invocation pattern ('poll every couple of minutes, not faster'), which is genuinely actionable guidance. However, it never says when to call this versus alternatives like get_project or project_card, nor what to do if the project has no generation in flight.

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