Check a video job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the state machine values, the expected latency (tens of seconds to minutes), and a recommended poll cadence. With no output schema, it also discloses what the call yields ('the clip when it has finished'), though it says nothing about how failed jobs report errors or whether results expire.

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 sentences with zero waste; the return value is front-loaded and the operational advice follows. 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?

For a read-only poll tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the state transitions, and timing expectations. It is close to complete; only failure-mode detail and any result-retention limits are missing.

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%, so both jobId and workspaceId are already documented in the schema, including jobId's origin in generate_video. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('current state of one video generation') and enumerates the possible states (queued, running, done, failed) plus the finished-clip payload. This clearly separates it from the plural list_video_jobs and the generating sibling generate_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?

Gives concrete polling guidance ('poll every 10-15 seconds rather than in a tight loop') and the schema ties jobId to generate_video, so the agent knows when this tool is the right call. It does not explicitly name list_video_jobs as the alternative for enumerating multiple jobs, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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