get_video_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description earns credit for adding genuinely new context: completed renders return presigned download URLs for both video and thumbnail, and those URLs expire in roughly one hour. That expiry detail is important operational knowledge absent from structured fields. It does not cover behavior for non-completed states (pending, processing, failed), which is the main remaining gap.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the one detail an agent cannot get from structured fields. Nothing is padded or repetitive.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for describing the response. It explains the completed case well, including URL expiry, but never enumerates the possible status values or says what the payload looks like while a render is pending or failed. For a status-check tool, that omission is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 is already documented as 'Render ID from create_video.' The description adds no further detail about the ID format, source, or reuse. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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: 'Check the status of a video render job.' An agent immediately knows this is a read-only status lookup. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly (e.g., create_video for producing the ID, retry_failed for failed renders), leaving differentiation to be inferred.

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: an agent must infer that this is polled after create_video, since the schema parameter mentions 'Render ID from create_video' but the description never says so. There is no guidance on polling cadence, when to stop polling, or what to do on failure versus success.

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