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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a rate limit, the success payload (videoUrl), failure/refund behavior, storage/refund finalization side effects, and a key requirement. These disclosures are consistent with the non-read-only, open-world annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the purpose and polling constraint. The final sentence about finalization and key requirements is slightly fragmented but still efficient.

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 polling tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers rate limiting, success output, failure/refund behavior, side effects, and auth requirements. It still leaves the taskId origin and exact failure response shape implicit.

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?

The only schema parameter, taskId, is never explained; with 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify where it comes from or its format. The mention of 'requires a key' introduces an auth concept that is not represented in the schema and may muddy parameter interpretation.

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 identifies a status-check on 'your own task' and states the success return (videoUrl for the MP4), so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly name video generation or differentiate itself from siblings such as generate_video.

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?

It provides a concrete polling constraint ('no faster than every 10 seconds'), which is useful procedural guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this relative to generate_video or name any alternatives/exclusions.

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