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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by stating the operation resumes from the point of failure rather than restarting, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what a resume attempt does if the job is unrecoverable.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the trigger condition attached as a subordinate clause. Nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the essential action, scope, and trigger condition. It leaves unstated what the tool returns or how the agent should proceed if the retry also fails, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents project_id fully. The description adds no format, constraint, or selection guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when structured fields carry the load.

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 pairs a specific verb (retries/resumes) with a specific resource (video generation) and clarifies the scope with 'from where it stopped.' That scope clause separates it from the sibling start_video_generation without the agent needing to open 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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition tied to another tool: use it 'when get_video_status suggests it.' It does not spell out the exact status values that qualify, nor explicitly warn against using it for a fresh generation (start_video_generation), so the routing is clear but not complete.

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