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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the status state machine (queued → processing → complete | failed), that videoUrl/downloadUrl are signed and expire after 24 h, and that the call is free.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return payload enumerated afterwards. Every clause carries information, though the packed parenthetical list of fields is slightly heavy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden and enumerates fields, statuses and URL expiry. It leaves minor gaps: whether URLs are null pre-completion (only implied by 'when complete') and whether failed projects expose error detail.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that project_id is a uuid returned by create_short / list_projects. The description adds no format, constraint or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get one project') and names the three entity subtypes (short, clip, compilation), which distinguishes it from list_projects, get_clip_plan and get_generation. The enumerated return fields make the tool's scope unmistakable.

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: an agent can infer this is the single-project status poll, but the description never says when to use it instead of wait_for_project, list_projects or get_generation. The 'Free' note hints at a cost trade-off against sibling tools but does not spell it out.

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