Get a finished job (video URL and details)

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and largely does: it discloses the model-dependent field location of the asset, that URLs are signed and expire in 7 days, that re-calling yields a fresh link, and that parameters and credits are returned. It omits the important edge case of what happens if the job is not yet finished.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the per-model field mapping. Every clause carries information; the only cost is that the run-on structure makes the 7-day expiry easy to skim past.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of explaining the return payload (video/video_url/file, parameters, credits) and the URL lifetime. The notable gap is the failure/pending-state behavior, which matters for a job-result retrieval tool alongside get_job_status.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively enumerates the meaningful `model` values and maps each to an output field, which adds real meaning, but the required `id` parameter is never explained (UUID of the job, accepted formats, source of the value).

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?

Opens with a specific noun phrase ('Full record of a job') and the title narrows it to a finished job, so the resource and the completion condition are clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings get_job_status / wait_for_job, which an agent must infer.

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?

Usage is only implied: the title says 'finished job' and 'call again for a fresh link' hints at re-fetching, but there is no explicit when-to-use-versus-get_job_status/wait_for_job routing. An agent likely infers the right moment, but nothing in the text confirms it.

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