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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the three possible statuses per target account, explaining that publish_url appears only on success, and prescribing polling while pending. It stops short of describing timing/rate limits or the shape of the per-account result.

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 action, then return values, then the polling instruction. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Given a single required param, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the token's origin, the terminal and intermediate states, and the retry behavior.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents video_token. The description mirrors that by noting it is the token returned by posts.create, adding provenance but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 (checks) and resource (publishing status of a video post), and ties itself to the sibling posts.create by naming where the video_token originates. An agent can distinguish this polling/status tool from the creation tool without opening either 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 clear context on when to use it (after posts.create, with the returned video_token) and explicitly instructs to check again while status is pending. It does not state exclusions or what to do once all statuses are terminal, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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