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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safe-read profile, the description adds useful behavior (30-second polling cadence, terminal states). But it omits the most operationally important trait: this is a blocking call that can run for a long time (maxAttempts up to 180), and it doesn't say what is returned or whether the call returns early on timeout.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence largely repeats the first — 'until COMPLETED or FAILED' appears twice while no space is given to unmentioned parameters or return behavior.

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 blocking poller with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, an agent still lacks what the call returns on success/failure, default attempt/interval values, and typical wait duration. The description covers the happy-path semantics only.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: generationId (required) and maxAttempts are never mentioned. Worse, the claim 'checks every 30 seconds' implies a fixed cadence that conflicts with the intervalSeconds parameter (2–60), which could mislead an agent about tunability.

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 ('Poll a video job until COMPLETED or FAILED') and enumerates exactly which job-producing tools it applies to (create_video, create_motion_control, create_avatar_video, upscale_video). This clearly separates it from wait_for_image, wait_for_music, and video_status.

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?

Naming the four originating tools gives strong context for when this tool is the right choice. However, it never contrasts with video_status (the non-blocking status check) or states that this call blocks until completion, so the agent must infer why it would pick blocking over a single status read.

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