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

The description repeats the read-only behavior already declared by readOnlyHint=true, which adds no new information. It does add some behavioral context by listing what status categories are included (upload progress, encoding qualities, playability), but it does not disclose error cases, response shape, or any side effects beyond what annotations already cover.

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 core purpose, with concrete examples of status contents. The 'Read-only.' clause is redundant given the annotation, and the endpoint string is slightly redundant with the tool's REST style, but the overall size is appropriate and no word is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only status endpoint, the description provides enough context to understand what data is returned (upload progress, encoding qualities, playability). Since there is no output schema, the description partially covers return semantics, though it could mention specific response fields or error conditions to be fully complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the parameter videoId is already documented as 'The video id.' The description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter, such as expected format, requiredness context, or relation to other parameters. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get encoding and ingest status for a video') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like apivideo_get_video or apivideo_get_video_analytics by naming the exact domain (status, upload progress, encoding qualities, playability). The REST endpoint is also included, reinforcing what resource is being addressed.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need encoding/ingest status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. With many sibling video-related tools, such explicit routing would improve clarity. Currently, usage context is only implied by the scope of the returned data.

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