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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the response contents (status, progress, still, and a short download link when finished) and the wait:true semantics of blocking up to ~40 seconds, which the schema only vaguely calls 'briefly'.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, then inputs, then outputs, then the exclusion. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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 three-parameter status tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description supplies everything the agent needs: purpose, input routing, blocking behavior, and an explicit sibling exclusion.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds value beyond the schema by quantifying the wait behavior (~40 seconds) and clarifying the provenance and relationship of job_id vs clip_id, notably that clip_id resolves to that clip's latest render.

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 ('get' a 'clip job'), then immediately situates it in the user's intent: knowing whether a clip is cut or rendered, or retrieving the finished file. It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (transcribe_audio), so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (check render status or fetch finished file) plus an explicit exclusion ('Do not use for transcribe_audio jobs'). It also routes input sources precisely: job_id from make_clips/restyle_clip, or clip_id for a clip's latest render.

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