Get Processing Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the quota cost, which is genuinely useful context an agent can't infer, but it omits that a polling call can consume repeated quota units and can end in a timeout error.

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 short sentences, zero waste, purpose front-loaded ahead of the quota note. It is efficiently sized, though arguably clipped to the point of under-specification rather than true brevity.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't restate return values, so the burden is light. Still, it does not mention that this is an optional long-poll tool, and 'Quota: 1 unit' could mislead given that 'wait' spends one unit per 10-second check.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents video, wait, timeout and my_channel thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, leaving the baseline 3 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 names a specific resource and state check: whether YouTube finished processing an upload. An agent can tell what it does, but there is no explicit differentiation from neighboring read tools like get_videos, which can also surface processing state.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The polling-vs-single-check decision is only discoverable by reading the schema's 'wait' parameter, not from the description itself.

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