Get FFmpeg result download URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: `media_url` is signed, needs no API key, expires 24 h after job completion, while `download_url` requires the user's Upload-Post API key. Those auth, expiry, and credential nuances are exactly the behavioral details an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the two return fields and their constraints. Every clause carries information (temporary, signed, no API key, 24 h expiry, downstream usage) and nothing is redundant.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still usefully characterizes the two returned URL fields and their caveats, plus the auth requirements for each. Combined with the read-only annotations and the downstream upload guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (`jobId`) exists and the schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It implies the job must already be finished (a meaningful precondition) but never explains what `jobId` is or where it comes from (e.g., the id returned by submit_ffmpeg_job), leaving that to inference.

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: it returns download instructions/URLs for a finished FFmpeg job's output, explicitly contrasted with streaming output through MCP. This distinguishes it in practice from get_ffmpeg_job/get_job_status, though it never names those siblings directly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives clear context for use (a job has finished and you want the output without streaming it through MCP) and even names the downstream consumers: pass `media_url` straight to upload_video / upload_photos. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_ffmpeg_job or what to do if the job is not yet finished, so no exclusion rules are provided.

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