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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure of what fields appear once a job reaches Completed, but says nothing about pending/failed states, latency, or the blocking behavior that the tool actually has.

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 that states the resource and then the conditional return payload. No filler, no redundancy.

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, the description correctly carries the return-shape burden by naming the three artifacts and the per-language granularity. It is nearly complete for a polling tool, missing only guidance on non-Completed terminal states and the wait_seconds blocking semantics.

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 50%: wait_seconds is well documented in the schema, while job_guids carries no description (only minItems/maxItems constraints). The description mentions neither parameter, so it does no compensating work, but the one undocumented parameter is largely self-evident from its name.

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 names a specific verb (status of jobs) and ties it to the concrete producing tool localize_video, then enumerates the returned artifacts (audio_url, final_video_url, translated SRT). It is clearly not a generic job tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_job_status/get_job_detail, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the polling tool for localize_video jobs. There is no explicit when-to-use vs get_job_status or get_job_detail, and no statement of preconditions. The only polling guidance ('if the job is still PENDING, call get_job_status later') lives in the schema, not the description.

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