check_video

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 possible statuses and the return fields when completed, which is meaningful. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only status check, it provides substantial transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value (statuses and return fields). No wasted wording.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key behavioral outputs and statuses. It omits edge cases like failed status details or error responses, but these are not necessary for basic usage. Overall complete enough for common workflows.

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 already fully describes video_id with 100% coverage, including its origin from create_video or generate_video. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating 'by video_id', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool checks rendering status by video_id, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_video, generate_video, download_video, and list_videos by focusing on status retrieval.

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 use after creating a video and before downloading by noting the video_id comes from create_video/generate_video and that completed status reveals download URLs. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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