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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'status/media poll', which hints at polling behavior, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it blocks or returns immediately, what happens when media is not ready, or what the response contains.

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 line with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler. It is easy to parse, though the phrase 'power-user status/media poll' is somewhat vague and jargon-heavy.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how it fits into the video generation workflow. It only gives a vague 'status/media poll' label, leaving the agent uncertain about return payloads, polling semantics, and relationship to sibling tools.

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?

The sole parameter queue_id is already fully described in the schema ('Queue id from video_queue / generate_video'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the HTTP endpoint and characterizes the tool as a 'status/media poll', which indicates it retrieves video status or media for a queued job. This is more specific than a tautology, though it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like get_generation_status or video_complete.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as wait_for_video, get_generation_status, and video_complete exist, but the description gives no criteria, conditions, or exclusions to help an agent choose correctly.

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