Vertex.Veo.Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: 'No cost', which tells the agent polling is free and can be repeated. It omits what happens on the not-yet-done path (status field? error?), terminal failure states, and any rate limits — significant gaps for a poll tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return payload and cost note. No filler; every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly notes the terminal payload. But for a poll tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves out the operation_name format, the polling contract, and failure handling — enough gaps to matter at invocation time.

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 single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not: it never says what an operation_name looks like or where the caller obtains it (presumably from vertex.veo.generate's response). The parameter's only meaning comes from the tool's own framing of 'a Veo operation'.

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 — 'Poll a Veo operation' — and adds the outcome ('returns the generated video URIs/bytes'), which separates it from the sibling vertex.veo.generate. It stops short of naming the generating tool it pairs with, so an agent must infer the generate→status pairing.

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?

'Poll' implies repeated invocation until completion, but the description never states the precondition (call after vertex.veo.generate), a polling cadence, or when to stop retrying. Usage is implied rather than stated, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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