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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that — expected 10–30 minute duration and the meaning of the 'unconfirmed' state (the start couldn't be verified). It also flags that the MP4 link is temporary, a useful caveat absent from the annotations, though it omits what happens for an invalid or unknown videoId.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the status set an agent needs first, then the timing and result payload. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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 with a full output schema, this covers the decision-relevant facts: the state space, wait time, and where the finished video lives. The only shortfall is the lack of explicit guidance on how often to re-poll while in the 'rendering' state.

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 one parameter and the schema description already says it is the 'videoId from create_listing_video' at 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier's format or source, so the schema carries this dimension entirely and the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a listing video's progress') and then enumerates the exact statuses returned (queued, rendering, ready, failed, unconfirmed), so an agent knows precisely what this reports. The listing-video scope cleanly separates it from sibling getters like get_agent or get_conversation.

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?

It gives real usage context — statuses to expect and that rendering typically takes 10 to 30 minutes — which implicitly tells the agent to re-check rather than treat a 'rendering' result as terminal. What's missing is an explicit polling cadence or a stated alternative (there is none in the sibling list), so there are no exclusions to spell out.

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