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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine behavior beyond them: the response enumerates credits lifecycle and pending-approval state, and wait_seconds turns this into a bounded long-poll (≤ 50). It does not say what happens when no job exists or whether the wait can time out, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both dense and front-loaded — the payload list first, the blocking-behavior caveat second. No filler, and the parenthetical lookup alternative is placed right where the reader needs it.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields returned. It is slightly incomplete on edge cases — what is returned when neither id is supplied (zero required params) and what happens if no job exists — but for a read-only status tool this is close to sufficient.

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 67% and the description compensates: it explains the video_id alternative ('the video's latest job') and the wait_seconds long-poll semantics plus the ≤ 50 ceiling, matching the schema's maximum. job_id itself is left to the schema, which is acceptable given the UUID format and pattern are documented there.

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+resource ('Status of a job') and immediately scopes the two lookup modes (job_id or the video's latest job). The enumerated payload — steps, progress, credits held/used/released, storyboard-approval wait, errors — makes it unmistakable versus siblings like cancel_job, approve_storyboard, or get_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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'wait for storyboard approval' mention hints at the approve_storyboard relationship and the wait_seconds sentence implies polling, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'do not use this to cancel/approve' guidance. An agent can infer the context but must do the work.

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