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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description merely restates 'Read-only' rather than adding new safety context. It does contribute behaviorally useful detail by naming what the status payload contains and giving the underlying endpoint path, which partially compensates for the absent output schema.

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 compact sentences with the purpose and return facets front-loaded, followed by the safety note and endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and endpoint adequately. It only lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer it over apivideo_get_video, and details like polling behavior for in-progress encoding.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description only implies that videoId is a path segment via 'GET /videos/{videoId}/status', adding no format or sourcing guidance beyond the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb (get) with a specific resource and scope (encoding and ingest status), and the parenthetical enumerates the returned facets (upload progress, encoding qualities, playability). This distinguishes it in substance from apivideo_get_video and apivideo_get_video_analytics, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 by the scope: reach for this when you need encoding/ingest state rather than full metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing from the sibling list.

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