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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the read-only annotations: it explains the possible statuses, that done includes video and poster links valid for 6 hours, and that failed means credits are refunded. These are important operational details an agent would otherwise not know.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the operation, its origin, its states, and the key return semantics. Every clause earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 the description need not explain the full return shape. It still provides enough status and link-expiry context for an agent to understand what calling this tool yields and how to interpret making, done, and failed results.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter's description ('From make_video') is already documented in the schema. The tool description does not add further syntax or format details for videoId, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: get a video made with make_video. It also names the possible states, making/done/failed, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like make_video and song-focused tools like get_song_details.

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?

The phrase 'made with make_video' clearly implies this is used to check the result of a prior make_video call. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context is clear and there is no direct sibling for video status lookup.

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