get_video_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The only added signal is that failures surface as a "bounded actionable failure message", which is vague - it does not say what a bounded message means, whether it is retryable, or what terminal states exist.

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?

It is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than concise - a fragment with no subject, no verb mapping to the tool, and nothing front-loaded about the resource being queried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape details are not required, but for a single-param polling tool the description should still identify the resource, the meaning of job_id, and the polling context. None of that is present, so the definition is not sufficient on its own.

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% and the single parameter job_id is completely undocumented in both schema and description. A caller gets no hint that job_id is the identifier returned by generate_video or that it must be a resolved job.

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 is a sentence fragment that never names the resource: "Read progress" of what is left implicit, relying entirely on the tool name. Against siblings like get_video_results and get_storyboard, it gives no basis for telling a status/progress poll apart from a results fetch.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_video_results, get_storyboard, or cancel_video, and no mention of polling after generate_video. The agent must infer the entire workflow from the tool name alone.

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