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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the terminal status value ('done') and that `url` becomes the durable video URL at that point. It omits other possible status values (pending/failed), which is the main remaining gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The status semantics and the downstream handoff to create_post are both delivered efficiently.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and it still adds the key status/url semantics. It would be stronger if it noted failure/pending states or the origin of jobId, but for a simple read-only poller it is largely complete.

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% for the single required jobId parameter, and the description never mentions jobId or where it comes from (presumably generate_video). Beyond the implicit 'a video generation job' framing, it adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving the compensation burden unmet.

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 clear verb+resource: retrieving the status of a video generation job. This distinguishes it in substance from generate_video (which starts a job), though it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 line 'ready for create_post' implies the polling workflow (generate_video -> get_media_job -> create_post), giving an implied usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus alternatives, or what to do while status is pending or if it fails.

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