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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations cannot: long-form jobs take many minutes (latency expectation) and should not be polled in a loop. It doesn't state behavior on an invalid or expired video_id.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then the timing caveat, then the invocation rule. No filler; every sentence changes agent behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by promising the link once ready, and it sets latency expectations for long-form jobs. It could say more about the not-ready-yet case (e.g., what a pending response looks like), which is the main remaining gap for a status-polling 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented there ('Job id from create_video. Omit for the most recent video.'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 how a video is coming along') plus the payoff ('get the link once ready'), which cleanly separates it from the other check_* siblings (check_animation, check_presenter, check_social_post, check_drive_upload). An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 says when to call ('when the user asks') and when not to ('not on a loop'), which is exactly the failure mode for a polling-style status tool. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating what to do if the job isn't ready yet.

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