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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the pending/failed/successful outcome model and the instruction to re-poll while pending. It stops short of rate limits or timing guidance for the retry loop.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the tool's purpose, the token's origin, the possible outcomes, and the polling rule are all front-loaded in that order.

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 read tool with an output schema and full annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: the source of the token, the returned status values, the success-only publish_url, and the re-poll condition while pending are all stated.

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% with a single, well-described parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the provenance of video_token (returned by posts.create), which is useful context but not new syntax or format detail.

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 ('Checks the publishing status of a video post') and ties the input to its producer ('using the video_token returned by posts.create'), cleanly separating it from the sibling write tool posts.create. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the 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?

Gives the operative usage rule for a polling tool: 'check again while the status is pending', which tells the agent when to re-invoke. It also anchors the call to the posts.create workflow, though it names no explicit alternative or when-not condition.

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