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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that non-mutating profile. It notes that status and results are returned, but for an asynchronous job endpoint it omits important behavior such as in-progress/failed states or the need to poll until completion.

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, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded before the sourcing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 burden of describing return values, and 'status and results' is only a thin sketch of what comes back. It is adequate for invocation but incomplete about async state semantics.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented as the request ID from a previous video generation call. The description largely restates that, adding only the list of generator tools that can source the ID, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Retrieve the status and results of a video generation request'), which clearly separates it from fetch-audio and fetch-image by resource type. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling fetch-generation, leaving some ambiguity about which fetch endpoint applies.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call it with a request ID produced by text-to-video, image-to-video, video-to-video, lip-sync, or motion-control, which supplies clear triggering context. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming fetch-generation as the alternative.

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