get_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description earns full credit for adding the async state machine: statuses 'queued,' 'processing,' and 'ready' control whether the analysis field is absent or present, plus the payload contents when ready. No contradiction with annotations; the title and description are consistent.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences: purpose, async status behavior, and payload contents. Every clause earns its place without filler or redundancy.

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 an async fetch operation with a single param, the description fully covers the lifecycle including the 'Free' cost qualifier, the polling conditions, and the result shape (summary, chapters, key points, timestamped evidence). With no output schema present, the description adequately completes the return contract.

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% and single-param, so the baseline 3 applies without any downside. The description reiterates the analyze_video relationship but adds no format, range, or default guidance beyond what the schema's own note already provides.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Fetch') + resource ('analysis') and anchors it to 'started by analyze_video,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling analyze_video/ask_video. The title 'Read a finished video analysis' further disambiguates its read-only role without restating the tool name.

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 the polling workflow ('poll again... when ready'), establishing when this tool is appropriate in the analysis lifecycle relative to the create operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives with when-not-to-use exclusions, though 'started by analyze_video' hints at the create/read pairing with its sibling.

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