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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the closing 'Read-only' is redundant. Beyond that, the description genuinely adds behavior an agent cannot get from structured fields: URLs are short-lived and refreshable via re-read, and failed exports are automatically refunded, which informs retry decisions.

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 core action, then the two operational details that matter (URL expiry, refunds). No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return-field explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the salient lifecycle states (completed/failed) plus refund behavior. The gap is the un-aided exportId parameter, which is the only thing an agent must supply.

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 single parameter exportId has 0% schema description coverage — no description, no stated format intent beyond a uuid pattern. The tool description never mentions the identifier at all, so the agent gets no help on where the exportId comes from (presumably the export_promo_video response) or what happens on an unknown/stale id.

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: returns status and progress of a promo-video export. This is clearly distinguishable from the mutation siblings export_promo_video and generate_promo_video, though it never names them or the related get_promo_video / get_promo_video_generation readers, leaving the agent to infer which 'get' to call.

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?

Implicit guidance is present — 'another status read can refresh the URL' tells the agent polling is the intended pattern. However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_promo_video or get_promo_video_generation, nor any note about how the exportId is obtained.

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