Get Video Status

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

Annotations already mark readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: video states are non-terminal and require repeated polling, a video_id can exist long before the video is playable, and Reel ID support is unverified. It also discloses that assuming a fresh video is live is wrong, a nuance not captured in annotations. There is no contradiction with any annotation.

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 three sentences with a logical flow: core purpose, usage/retry guidance, and ID-type caution. It is front-loaded with the polling action and state list, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation or interpretation. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the required input-type constraint, non-terminal state behavior, retry guidance, and an edge-case warning about Reel IDs. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be explained. The profile parameter is fully documented in the schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds extra semantics by clarifying that video_id must be a video ID, 'never a post ID,' and warning that Reel ID resolution is unverified. It does not discuss the profile parameter, but the input schema already fully documents its behavior, including the default page fallback.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Poll where one video stands in Meta's pipeline: uploading, processing, ready or error.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_post or create_video_post by focusing on video pipeline status and listing the distinct states. The explicit contrast with facebook_create_video_post reinforces the tool's unique role.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: after facebook_create_video_post returns a video_id, to poll status instead of assuming the video is live. It also gives when-not guidance by saying 'Takes a video ID, never a post ID' and warns that Reel ID resolution is unverified. The polling retry pattern is described clearly: 'uploading and processing are not terminal, so wait a few seconds and call again.'

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