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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial extra behavior: the full status lifecycle, the awaiting_upload credential behavior, 24-hour re-download window, retryVoucher on failed charged jobs, and the deliberate not_found response for bad token/unknown jobId.

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?

Front-loaded and information-dense, but the second half crams a multi-stage lifecycle, expiry, and error semantics into one long parenthetical run-on. It earns its place informatively but sacrifices readability.

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?

No output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values—which it does via resultUrl/thumbnailUrl/durationMs/uploadExpiresAt/retryVoucher. Nearly complete; only lightly redundant given a 2-param read-only tool.

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% (baseline 3), and the description meaningfully extends it: it explains the token is the `t` parameter of statusUrl and that the statusUrl cannot be regenerated, adding real semantic guidance about where to source the parameter.

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+resource ('status lookup for a job') and ties ownership to the producing siblings (convert_video / probe_media / extract_frames), so the agent can distinguish it from those without opening a 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?

Clearly scopes usage to jobs accepted by the three named conversion tools and explains the required statusUrl token. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and doesn't reference sibling get_balance, but context is strong.

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