Gemini Check Video Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that and the tool name – no mention of polling cadence, that the operation may still be running, or what happens on an unknown/expired operation name.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified for a tool that likely needs polling context.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the description says nothing about operation lifecycle states or what an agent should do with a still-running result, which is the main thing missing for this kind of status-check tool.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema itself explaining it comes 'from gemini_generate_video'. The description adds no additional semantics, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a video generation operation'), which cleanly separates it from the research/check and generation siblings. It stops short of naming gemini_generate_video_tool as its producer (that link lives only in the schema), so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 pairing with an async video generation flow is implied by 'video generation operation', so an agent can infer this is the polling step after gemini_generate_video_tool. However, the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance, leaving it at implied usage.

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