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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the response includes progress and clip count, but says nothing about polling cadence, job state transitions, or failure states that a poller needs.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it names the three returned fields without padding. Nothing in it is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry partial return-value disclosure (status, progress, clip count), which is the right instinct. However, for a polling tool it omits the transitional-state behavior and any parameter documentation, leaving the agent guessing about call frequency and termination.

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 0% for the single jobId parameter, so the schema supplies only type and length constraints. The description implies jobId identifies the Clipper job but adds no format, source, or provenance detail beyond that inference.

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 ('Poll') and resource ('Clipper job'), and narrows scope to status, progress, and generated clip count, which separates it from list_clip_jobs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_clip_job, leaving some ambiguity about which read tool returns what.

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?

'Poll' implies a repeated-call pattern after job creation, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_clip_job or list_clip_jobs, and no guidance on terminal states or when to stop polling.

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