Check a KaiRouter video job's status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the status values, the success condition for video_url, and expected latency. It does not, however, describe behavior on failure (e.g., possible error fields), invalid job IDs, or whether the operation is read-only (implicit but not stated). This covers the basics but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 with no redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by status semantics and practical polling advice. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is over-explained.

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 single-parameter polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the key response elements (status, video_url on success) and timing. It lacks details on failure responses, error handling, or what happens with an invalid job ID, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 description for job_id already states 'The job id returned by generate_video', and coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond this; it only reinforces the generate_video link. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses the specific verb 'Poll' with the resource 'status of a video generation job', and immediately ties it to generate_video, making it distinct from siblings like list_video_jobs (lists all) and generate_video (creates). The action and scope are unambiguous.

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 states the tool is for jobs started with generate_video and provides concrete polling guidance ('Poll every few seconds') with expected time ranges. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context strongly implies it's for a single job's status.

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