Video job status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: successful jobs return a signed URL that expires after a few hours, which affects how the agent must handle the result.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the important output caveat immediately after. Nothing pads or buries the key information.

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 parameter descriptions, the description should at least cover job states (queued/running/failed) and the wait/timeout interaction. It covers only the success-case URL, leaving the agent guessing about failure states and how blocking waits terminate.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for media_ids, wait, and timeout_sec. It only loosely gestures at 'wait' and says nothing about the required media_ids array or the timeout_sec default/units, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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 ('Check') and resource ('video jobs'), plus an alternative mode ('wait for'). It is understandable, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling flow_status, which an agent could easily confuse with this job-status tool.

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 parenthetical '(or wait for)' hints that a blocking mode exists, but there is no guidance on when to poll versus wait, how this differs from flow_status, or what timeout behavior to expect. No alternatives are named.

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