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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value beyond them by confirming poll-safety and by disclosing the child-short behavior: reporting the parent run while preserving the explicit child identity. This contextual trait is not inferrable from annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by poll safety and the identity edge case. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or 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?

The description lists the key pieces of information returned (progress, planner job, child project IDs, edit versions, final-render states) and covers the important safety and edge-case behaviors. Given no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It makes clear that project_id refers to 'an explicit project' and explains the edge case of a generated short ID. Although it doesn't explain where to obtain the ID or specify formatting, a single required integer parameter named project_id is adequately disambiguated.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an explicit project's Podcast to Shorts progress...' and enumerates exactly what is returned (planner job, child project IDs, edit versions, render states). It also clarifies the special case where project_id is a generated short, distinguishing it from siblings like make_shorts or project_state.

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?

'Safe to poll while clips are being built' gives a clear usage context and signals this is a read/status operation. The description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know it can be called during a build process.

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