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

Annotations already establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the 'succeeded' status is the success signal, videoUrl is the eventual result, and that result is external and must be re-hosted before use.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value. The status condition and the re-host warning are compact but high-signal.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the completion condition, and a critical post-processing warning. Minor gaps remain around other possible statuses and polling behavior, but nothing essential is missing for basic correct use.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema describes it fully as 'Job id from neuron_studio_transform_video.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline for high schema coverage 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('video-transform job'), clearly distinguishing this polling tool from the initiating sibling neuron_studio_transform_video. The success criterion is also stated precisely.

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 makes clear this is a polling operation to check on a previously submitted transform job, and the parameter schema ties the job id to neuron_studio_transform_video. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is strongly implied.

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