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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method and endpoint, the one-time call behavior, and the two possible response forms (JSON status or delivered MP4). This is reasonably transparent for a status-retrieval tool, though it omits error and authentication details.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the endpoint, call count, and response type. Every word contributes useful information and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, how to invoke it, how many times to call it, and what it returns. It could be slightly more complete by naming sibling alternatives, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only one parameter and the schema already documents it fully, including its source context from video_queue/generate_video. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is needed given the complete schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action and resource: it retrieves video generation status via POST /v1/video/retrieve and returns either JSON status or a delivered MP4. This conveys the core purpose well, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like video_retrieve or wait_for_video.

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 word 'once' gives useful guidance that this is a single status check rather than a polling operation, and the schema ties queue_id to video_queue/generate_video. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when another tool such as wait_for_video should be preferred.

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