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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds that it returns both status and result (not just status) and that the call is free, which is genuinely useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about possible job states, whether pending jobs return partial results, or failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned; the terse 'Free.' fragment still earns its place as cost information. Nothing is extraneous.

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 no annotations beyond read-only, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and 'status and result' is only a sketch – it omits the possible status values and result shape for three different job types.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents job_id. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (a download, transcription or clips job) and what it returns (status and result), so an agent can tell it apart from list_jobs, which enumerates many jobs. It is not a tautology of the title 'Job status', though it stops short of naming the sibling it is not.

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 only implied – the required job_id makes it clear this is a follow-up call on a job previously created by download_video, transcribe_video or create_clips, but the description never says when to use it rather than list_jobs or how often to poll.

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