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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real value: the download URL only appears when status is "completed", that URL needs the same Gisoo key in the Authorization header, failed renders are auto-refunded, and the call is free. It stops short of listing the possible status values, which is the main behavioral gap for a polling tool.

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 verb and the sibling dependency, then the completed-status/download/auth facts in a sensible order. The bilingual rendering repeats "costs nothing" twice ("Free: costs nothing" / "این ابزار هزینه ندارد"), but the text is otherwise tight.

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 rightly explains what the response contains when status is "completed" and what happens on failure. It lacks the set of intermediate statuses an agent needs to decide whether to keep polling, which is the one thing missing for a one-parameter polling 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 coverage is 100% and the id property already documents "The job id from create_video (vid_…)", so the description adds nothing new about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 ("Check a render started with create_video") and ties itself directly to the create_video sibling, so an agent can tell it apart from create_video and the other generation tools. The Persian sentence reinforces the same purpose without contradiction.

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?

Usage is clear: call this after create_video to poll a render, and the download endpoint plus auth requirement are given for the next step. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or what to do while status is still pending, but the sequencing is unambiguous.

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