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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether 'refresh' is a read-only status check, whether it mutates anything, what happens for stale or unknown upload references, or what response the agent should expect. The qualifiers 'recent' and 'tenant-bound' add some constraint context but not enough.

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 a single focused sentence, front-loads the action, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important operational details: the expected return value, when to poll, prerequisites, and error behavior. It is sufficient only for an agent already familiar with the upload_ref lifecycle.

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 only 50%; customer_id is documented in the schema, but upload_ref is not. The description adds useful context by calling upload_ref 'tenant-bound' and 'opaque', but it does not explain where upload_ref comes from, its expected format, or how it relates to the upload lifecycle.

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 uses a specific verb ('Refresh') and resource ('recent direct video upload'), and identifies the key input (tenant-bound opaque upload_ref). It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like google_ads_video_uploads_list or google_ads_video_upload_confirm.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool, what precedes it (e.g., an upload confirm step), or why it should be chosen over the many sibling upload/status tools. The use case is only implied by the word 'status' in the tool name.

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