Get a job's status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the returned fields (status, status_percentage, status_failed, credits_refunded) and the terminal-state semantics, including the failure variants failed*, rejected_* and not_pass_moderation for audio. It omits auth requirements or rate limits, but covers the operationally critical traits.

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 dense sentences with the status/return information front-loaded and the alternative routing last. No filler, though the terminal-state enumeration is terse enough that readability suffers slightly.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and terminal states, which is what an agent most needs. The main gap is parameter guidance given the 0% schema coverage, but the core polling-vs-check decision guidance is present.

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 for both parameters, yet it explains neither the 'id' (job UUID) nor the 'model' enum semantics beyond loosely implying 'video job or audio clip'. The enum values are somewhat self-descriptive, but the description adds little beyond what the schema naming already conveys.

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 (get) and resource (job status) and scopes the resource precisely as 'a video job or audio clip'. It also names the sibling wait_for_job, so an agent can distinguish this from alternatives without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Prefer wait_for_job, which polls for you'), giving clear routing logic. However, it does not state the positive condition under which this tool should be chosen (e.g., non-blocking checks), leaving that to inference.

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