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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: the poll cadence, the meaning of each terminal state, and that 'partial' still yields usable clips. It does not describe pagination or behavior for very old/expired jobs, but the value added over the annotations is substantial.

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 short sentences, each load-bearing: identity, return contents, and two operational caveats. The status list is inline rather than padded into prose, and nothing is repeated from the structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description must cover return values, and it names status, progress counters, source info, and clips with download_url. The counters' units and the polling stop condition are left implicit, a minor gap for a poll-based job tool.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description contributes only an implicit reference to job_id's origin, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('status of a job created with create_clips') and enumerates the full status vocabulary, plus what the response contains. It ties itself explicitly to the create_clips sibling, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance ('Poll every 10–15 seconds') and explains the ambiguous 'partial' outcome. It stops short of stating when to use this versus list_clips for retrieving finished clips, which is the one plausible overlap among siblings.

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