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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the meaningful behavioral point that it is a single-shot (non-blocking, non-polling) check, but says nothing about what status values are returned, which matters for a status tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with a clarifying parenthetical and no filler. Efficient, though arguably too terse for the information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return shape (status values, terminal states), and it does not. It also leaves the id/tool relationship unstated, making it inadequate for a status-check tool whose entire value is interpreting returned state.

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%: 'id' is a bare string with no explanation, and the 13-value 'tool' enum is unaddressed by the description. The word 'generation' lets an agent loosely infer that id identifies a generation, but the description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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+resource ('generation status check') and the qualifier 'single-shot' implies it differs from polling tools like wait_for_video. The name 'video_status' is slightly misleading since the 'tool' enum spans image, music, voiceover, etc., though the description's generic 'generation' wording partially corrects this.

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?

'Single-shot' and '(used by the preview UI)' hint at when this is appropriate versus the wait_for_* siblings, but no explicit when/when-not or named alternative is given. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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