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

Annotations already mark the call read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes processing status, which is the main behavioral nuance beyond a plain fetch; no rate limits or side effects need disclosure for this simple read.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core behavior is in the first sentence. The use-case sentence earns its place by giving the agent a practical trigger for when to call the tool.

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 low-complexity read with a complete schema and an output schema present, the definition gives enough to call it correctly. It could add explicit handling of non-processing states, but the current guidance plus annotations is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 describes all three parameters, including the important distinction between form_id and the short share_id, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no new parameter-level detail; node_id remains minimally described as 'The node ID,' but the schema has 100% coverage.

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 concrete read operation: retrieving media attached to a node, and extends it with 'including processing status,' so an agent knows both the resource and the extra signal it returns. This clearly differentiates it from mutation siblings like clipform_attach_node_media or clipform_delete_node_media.

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?

The phrase 'Useful for checking if a video upload has finished processing' gives a concrete invocation scenario. It does not mention when to prefer another tool such as clipform_search_media or clipform_list_assets, so it stops at clear context rather than explicit routing.

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