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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature, that it returns status and video URL when complete, and that it is free. It could add more on error handling or polling behavior, but for a simple status check it is sufficiently transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes usage, expected output, and cost without redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the user when to call, what to pass, what to expect, and the cost. No critical information is missing.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for job_id with a clear description: 'The job_id returned by generate_fashion_video.' The description reinforces this but adds no new semantic meaning, so the baseline score 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 description clearly states the tool checks the status of an async video generation job, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing generate_fashion_video and the returned job_id.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call this tool after generate_fashion_video with the returned job_id, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes the tool is free, which is relevant for usage decisions.

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