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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds the key behavioral context that this tool's result gates other operations, and that there's a 'done' state. However, it doesn't describe the return format or whether it's a pollable status, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise at two sentences, but the first sentence is a fragment ('Progress of an explicit project's video analysis.') which could be more grammatically complete. The key gating information is front-loaded, and there is no 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?

Given the low complexity (single integer param) and presence of readOnly annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and gating. However, it doesn't specify what the progress output looks like (e.g., a status string, percentage), which an agent would need to interpret the result. This gap is notable since there's no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must explain project_id. It refers to 'explicit project' but never explicitly states that project_id is the identifier or how to use it. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type, leaving the parameter under-documented.

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 tool checks the progress of a project's video analysis, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also differentiates from siblings by explaining that editing tools depend on this status reaching 'done', so it's not about reading content but checking readiness.

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 gives strong contextual usage guidance: use this tool to check if analysis is complete before attempting to use editing tools that require transcript, shots, or silences. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_transcript or wait_for_job, but the gating condition implies when to use it.

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