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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and notably readOnlyHint=false). The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by listing the three terminal outcomes (generating / finished link / failure reason), which is useful for deciding whether to poll again. However, with an output schema present the return states are largely covered structurally, and the description never reconciles that 'check' behavior with the non-read-only annotation, so the added value is modest.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and no filler. The final sentence partly restates the id requirement already stated in the first/second sentence, which is the only wasted motion.

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 single-parameter polling tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essentials: trigger, prerequisite id, and possible outcomes. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on whether to keep polling versus fetch the finished artifact would make it airtight.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: it clarifies that the id can come from edit_video as well as create_video (the schema property only mentions create_video). That provenance detail is the difference between calling this correctly and guessing.

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 ('check whether a video ... is ready') and scopes it to output of create_video/edit_video, so the agent can distinguish it from generic retrieval tools like get_artifact. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the generic artifact readers, so it doesn't quite reach the top tier.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('when the user asks whether a video ... is ready') and names the prerequisite ('the id from create_video or edit_video'), which is exactly the context an agent needs mid-workflow. It does not name an alternative for the case where the video is already finished (e.g. get_artifact), so there is a small gap.

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