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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. Description adds typical timing (under a minute, longer for long videos) and advises against polling, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. But doesn't describe error states, what happens if job_id omitted, or return format.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and timing, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only check with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and usage. Minor gap: doesn't explain what the Drive link looks like or handling of errors, but adequate for basic 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add additional meaning about job_id, but doesn't need to since schema is complete. 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 specific verb (Check) and resource (Drive upload progress), plus outcome (get Drive link). Distinguishes from siblings like save_to_drive and check_video by naming the specific upload job.

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?

Provides clear context: call when user asks, not on a loop. Implicitly suggests polling is discouraged. However, doesn't explicitly name save_to_drive as the prerequisite or alternative for checking other jobs.

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