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

The description portrays a pure status poll ('Returns generating, the finished file link, or why it failed'), yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. A status check is inherently read-only and idempotent, so the implied behavior directly contradicts the structured annotations.

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 and then the return states, with no filler. There is slight redundancy in restating 'from create_video or edit_video' twice, which keeps it from a 5.

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 one-parameter status tool with a full output schema and annotations present, the description covers trigger, source, and return states, so an agent has what it needs to call it. The unaddressed mismatch with the declared read-only/idempotency annotations is the only gap.

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% for the single artifactId parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only reinforces the origin of the id (from create_video/edit_video), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 (check) and resource (a video's status) and explicitly frames it as the ready-state query for artifacts produced by create_video or edit_video. An agent can immediately distinguish it from its create_video/edit_video siblings.

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 precise trigger ('when the user asks whether a video from create_video or edit_video is ready') and names the prerequisite-producing tools, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of an explicit when-not or alternative-tool exclusion, which keeps it just below the top mark.

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