Check Video Status

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-readonly, but the description adds crucial behavior: downloading and saving to disk. It does not contradict annotations. Some additional context (e.g., what happens on failure) could improve transparency, but the provided info is sufficient.

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 sentences, no filler. The key action (check, download, save, return) is front-loaded and concise.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the main workflow. With an output schema present, it need not detail return format. Missing error-handling info is a minor gap, but not critical for this straightforward 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 has 100% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that polling_url and video_id are alternative identifiers, which is not explicit in the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('video generation job'), and clearly distinguishes from its sibling generate_video by being a follow-up step. It states exactly what happens on completion.

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 usage context (after generate_video) and mentions the two ways to specify the job (polling_url or video id). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other sibling tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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