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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add operational context, which it does: it discloses the three terminal states, when result_url is populated, and a minimum polling interval that functions as a rate-limit hint. It stops short of saying what happens on failure or whether job ids expire.

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; the core behavior and return values come first, followed by the polling constraint. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned status values and result_url. The only real gap for a single-parameter polling tool is the origin/format of job_id and what to do after a 'failed' status.

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% and the single parameter job_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never says where job_id comes from (presumably a generate_image/generate_video response) or what format it takes, so an agent gets no added meaning beyond the bare property name.

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 names a specific verb and resource (check a video or image generation) and enumerates the return states (pending|done|failed) plus result_url, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the generate_* siblings by being the polling counterpart, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is concrete operational guidance — 'Wait at least 30 seconds between polls' — which tells the agent how to poll but not when to prefer this tool over others or what preconditions exist. The when-to-use context (call after a generation is submitted, using the returned job id) is only implied.

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