Get clip or ad status

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, and the description adds meaningful context on top: the possible statuses, that clip records additionally expose merge_status and merged_video_id once merged, and that it costs no credits. It does not contradict the read-only/open-world 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?

Four short sentences carry all the essential information: behavior, kind variants, polling role, statuses, merge fields, and cost. The main action is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 2-parameter read-only poll tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to get the id/kind, what statuses to expect, the merge-specific fields, and cost. The absence of error/not-found behavior is a minor gap that does not compromise correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a little context by mapping id/kind to CLI commands and to the outputs of the creation tools, but most parameter meaning (clip vs ad, default kind, id format) already lives in the schema. It does not materially reduce the agent's need to read the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current status of a clip ... or of a merged ad', which immediately tells an agent what the tool does. It also names its role as 'the poll tool for create_clip, create_motion_clip and merge_ad', clearly distinguishing it from sibling creation/list/download tools.

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 states exactly when to use it: after create_clip, create_motion_clip, or merge_ad, to poll status. It also covers both kind variants with defaults and CLI equivalents, but does not explicitly list exclusions such as 'use download_video when you need the actual media file', so it falls just short of a 5.

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