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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the three terminal/non-terminal states, that failures carry the error, and that completion yields a URL in media storage. It stops short of guidance on polling cadence or how long processing typically takes.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then stacks the outcome states in order. No filler, no restating the name.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming all three states and what each contains, plus the downstream handoff to schedule_post. Only a polling/retry expectation is missing, which is a minor gap for a status-check tool.

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 exists and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents job_id including its origin ('from generate_video'). The description repeats the same provenance ('generate_video') without adding format, length, or validity details, so 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 and resource ('Check an AI video job') and enumerates the three possible outcomes: processing, failed with error, or completed with the video URL. The scoping to video jobs (via 'AI video job' and job_id 'from generate_video') distinguishes it from the sibling get_persona_job_status, which serves persona jobs.

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 description places the tool in a workflow chain: its job_id originates from generate_video and its completed output feeds schedule_post's media_urls, which tells the agent when to reach for it. It does not state explicit exclusions or how this differs from other status-checking siblings beyond the implicit video/persona split.

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