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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds substantial context on top: the full status vocabulary, which states are terminal vs. non-terminal, and what transfer_progress and progress mean. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then id rules, then status meanings, then return fields. It is dense and runs as one long block with no formatting, but every clause earns its place by defining a status value or a return field.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names all four return fields (asset_id, version_id, url, version_url) and fully enumerates the status outcomes with their handling. Nothing an agent needs to call and correctly interpret this tool is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description exceeds the schema by clarifying that asset_id may be a version id or an asset id, that it resolves to the current version, and that a folder id is refused. That is genuine meaning beyond the schema's one-line parameter note.

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 (check) and resource (processing status of an uploaded or imported video) and its readiness semantics. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from siblings like upload_video or wait_for_feedback purely from the description.

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?

Gives explicit acceptance rules (version id or asset id, folder id refused) and conditional next actions per state: poll again for in-progress states, and read error_message / stop polling / re-upload on error. It doesn't route to any sibling alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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