get_video_status

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false without saying why; the description resolves that by disclosing that a completed job writes an MP4 into the output directory. That is genuinely additive context. It stops short of covering repeated-call behavior (does a second call re-download?), where the output directory is, or what happens on failure.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the conditional side effect. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be skimmed past.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the write side effect is covered. However, for a polling tool that produces files, the description omits whether the call blocks until completion, whether it is safe to repeat, and where the downloaded artifact lands relative to other tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that job_id comes from start_video. The description adds no format, validation, or provenance detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (check a video job) and adds the terminal side effect (download the MP4). It is clearly distinct from sibling start_video and from the image tools, though it never names start_video explicitly as the originating call.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'check a video job' suggests calling it after job submission, and the schema's 'job_id returned by start_video' fills that gap. There is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on how often to poll, and no statement about what to do if the job failed or is still running.

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