veo_get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by documenting the three task states ('processing', 'succeeded', 'failed'), noting that failures include an error message, and stating that results contain URLs and metadata. It stops short of explaining data retention or polling implications, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 well organized with a short summary, usage bullets, task-state list, and return-value note. There is minor redundancy between the opening paragraph and the use-when bullets, but it is compact and scannable.

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 simple task-status tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers when to use it, expected states, and return content. The main gap is that both parameters are marked optional while the description implies a task ID is needed, but this is minor given the schema and output schema.

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 100% and already explains task_id and trace_id. The description adds task-level context but does not provide additional param-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query the status and result of a video generation task.' It clearly distinguishes this single-task query tool from generation tools like veo_text_to_video and batch tool veo_get_tasks_batch.

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 explicit 'Use this when' bullets covering completion checks and URL retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear and sufficient.

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