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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 50 s cap, the two possible return shapes, the timedOut restart loop, and cost ('Free'). It still does not describe failure/error surfaces or credit-consumption edge cases, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the wait semantics and terminal conditions, then the timeout fallback, then the sibling comparison. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 carries the return-value burden — and it does, specifying the completed project with signed video link versus a progress snapshot with timedOut=true. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and re-call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters, their ranges (1–50), the default (45), and the project_id provenance are documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the 50 s ceiling but adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 (wait for a project), the terminal conditions (complete or failed), and the return payload (project with signed video link). Sibling get_project is explicitly named as the thing this replaces, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('instead of polling get_project in a tight loop') and an explicit retry protocol for the timeout case ('returns the current progress with timedOut=true — call it again'). Both the alternative and the exclusion condition are named.

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