get_media_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that this is about asynchronous processing of uploaded media, which hints at polling behavior, but it never states whether status is transient, whether it can fail, or how long processing takes.

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 its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool whose usage pattern needs explanation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the possible statuses (e.g., processing/ready/failed) and what the agent should do next. None of that is present, leaving the caller unable to interpret results for a two-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: the account parameter is documented but media_id has no schema description, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining that media_id comes from upload_media. With low coverage, the description should carry this burden and does not.

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 (processing status of an uploaded video/GIF), which is clearly distinct from upload_media and other siblings. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never says this should be called after upload_media, that it is a polling operation, or what to do with the result, all of which are the key usage decisions for a status-check tool.

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