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

The description explains the non-obvious traits behind the annotations: readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false make sense because 'The check that first finds a job finished is when it is charged.' It also discloses the one-hour expiry of returned download links and the need to re-check, which an agent cannot learn from the structured fields.

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 purpose, then the return payload, then the billing side effect. Little waste, though the opening is phrased loosely and the billing caveat arrives last despite being the most decision-relevant fact.

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, and the description compensates by describing the return (download links with a one-hour validity) and the billing trigger. It stops short of covering in-progress or failed job states, which an agent polling a job would want to recognise.

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 single job_id parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The job_id a tool returned (job_…).' The description adds no syntax, format, or validation 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?

The first sentence identifies the resource (a picture, effect, video or long-video job) and the operation (reporting how it is doing), and the second states what comes back on completion (download links). It is clearly distinct from the generation/editing siblings, though the phrasing 'how ... is doing' is informal rather than a crisp verb like 'retrieve status'.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent must infer this is called after a job-producing tool returns a job_id. The 'check again for fresh ones' clause does give polling guidance once links expire, but no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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