Get async task 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 structurally. The description usefully adds that the poll_url is preferred and which job types the fixed endpoint covers, but says nothing about what a returned status/result contains or how polling should be paced.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the endpoint guidance. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 status-polling tool with no output schema, the description should say something about the shape of the returned status/result (e.g., pending/succeeded/failed and where the result lives). That gap is partially offset by the endpoint routing detail and the annotation coverage.

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 the single parameter's provenance (id/task_id or embedded in poll_url) is already documented in the schema description. The tool description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Retrieves the status and result of an asynchronous generation task'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It also clarifies the scope (video, music, 3D jobs) and the canonical endpoint, though it never contrasts itself with the adjacent sibling cancel_task.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: prefer the poll_url from the create response, with /v1/tasks/{id} as the canonical fixed endpoint. That is a real when-to-use-which instruction, but it stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., cancel_task) or stating when not to poll.

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