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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: calls are free of charge (no billing impact from polling) and the content_url is scoped to the same API key that submitted the job. What is missing is any mention of status values, expected latency, or whether repeated polling is rate-limited.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, cost, and result accessibility. Nothing redundant or padded, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be documented, and the description covers cost and access scoping. It could go slightly further by noting terminal statuses or that polling should continue until done, but nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states request_id comes from generate_video, so the description's restatement adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.

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?

"Report the status of a video job" is a specific verb+resource pair, and the phrase "submitted with generate_video" ties it explicitly to the only sibling tool. An agent can immediately tell this is the polling/read counterpart to job submission.

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 description makes clear the tool applies only to jobs created by generate_video, which is the key usage condition given the sibling set of one. The "when status is done, content_url serves the clip" clause implies a poll-until-done workflow, but no polling cadence or terminal-state guidance is spelled out.

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