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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by implying a non-blocking, single-shot call that returns immediately (as opposed to a polling wait). It does not describe what status values are returned or what happens for an unknown/expired id.

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?

A single short sentence with the core operation front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficiently written; the terseness is a function of under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is clean.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should explain the return (what statuses look like) and how it relates to wait_for_video. Neither is present, so an agent cannot fully reason about the result shape or when to prefer this over waiting.

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 carries the full burden, yet it explains neither parameter. It does not clarify that 'id' is a generation identifier, nor that 'tool' must match the type of generation being queried (the enum's 12 values are listed but their relationship to the id is unstated). The schema enum is self-evident, but the id/tool coupling is not.

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 gives a verb-adjacent phrase ('generation status check') and a scope modifier ('single-shot'), so the agent knows it is a one-off poll. However, it never says the resource is *video* specifically nor distinguishes itself from the many sibling *_status tools (audio_status, image_status, clipping_status). The purpose is implied but not sharply differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Critically, the polling sibling wait_for_video exists and is the obvious alternative, yet the description does not mention it or state when a single-shot check should be preferred over waiting. Only the word 'single-shot' hints at a distinction.

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