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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: the four-value status lifecycle, expected latency, the non-obvious rule that an un-describable video reports `failed` rather than empty `succeeded`, and the absence of background timers. This is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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 core behavior and the WHEN/TIMING labels make it scannable. Minor overlap between 'poll every 5-10 seconds' and 'wait `poll_after_seconds` rather than picking your own interval' creates a brief tension the reader must resolve, and the untrusted-text block, while valuable, runs long.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does: `status` values, `analysis.text`, `error.message`, and `poll_after_seconds`. It also warns that the result is untrusted third-party text and must not be rendered as HTML/Markdown, which is essential safety context for a tool that returns free-form model output.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The analysis id returned by `analyze_video`'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds only the signed-in-account scoping, nothing about id format or origin beyond what the schema 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 and resource: returns the current state of one video analysis on the signed-in account, plus its result once finished. An agent can immediately distinguish it from `analyze_video` (which starts one) and `list_analyses` (which enumerates many).

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?

The WHEN block names the trigger explicitly (after `analyze_video`) and the exit condition (`status` is `succeeded` or `failed`), and instructs polling every 5-10 seconds until then. It also names the alternative interval source — `poll_after_seconds` — and tells the agent to prefer it over its own cadence.

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