check_video_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a polling operation on status, implying a non-destructive read. But it does not describe what the response looks like (e.g., possible statuses like pending/completed/failed), nor does it mention any polling cadence or eventual termination. The description is safe but minimal, lacking deeper behavioral context like potential errors or rate limits.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and the source of the input. There is no extraneous wording; every part earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple polling tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and where the requestId originates. It could mention that polling is repeated until a terminal status is reached, but this is a minor gap given the minimal complexity.

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 schema provides full coverage (100%) and the requestId parameter has an explicit description stating it comes from record_website_video with async=true. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies. The schema already handles parameter semantics effectively.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('poll'), the target resource ('status of an async video job'), and ties it explicitly to the creating tool, record_website_video with async=true. It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating its specific role in the async workflow, so an agent can easily identify its purpose.

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 description implies when to use it: after calling record_website_video with async=true and receiving a requestId. It gives context on where the requestId comes from. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for sync jobs) or mention alternatives. Still, the context is clear enough for basic usage.

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