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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. What the description does add is the caller contract (card-invoked, not model-invoked) and an enumeration of returned data (status, video, summary, frame images), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and short enough to read in one pass. The closing 'Read-only' earns little place since annotations already state it.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, caller, and returned fields well. The one material omission is any explanation of the view parameter's modes.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that job_id identifies 'one analysis of the connected account', but the 'view' enum (open vs poll) is never mentioned, leaving the agent with no idea what those values change.

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 resource and scope: 'the status, video, summary and frame images of one analysis of the connected account, by job_id.' It also distinguishes itself from data-fetching siblings like get_analysis by declaring it is 'Called by the card itself, not by the model.'

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 an explicit trigger ('when the analysis card in the chat needs its data') and an explicit exclusion ('not by the model'), so an agent knows immediately whether it should call this at all. The alternative for model-initiated reads is implied by the sibling get_analysis, but the exclusion is unambiguous.

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