Check video render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: polling, optional waiting, downloading the finished video, and returning an asset id/path. It does not cover failure/expiry states, rate limits, or permissions, but the main side effects and outcome are stated.

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?

The description is three compact sentences with no wasted wording. The core action and the important omit-parameter behavior are front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (asset id/path), the optional wait behavior, and the listing mode. It is nearly complete, though it omits what happens on failed or expired operations.

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 only 50%: waitSeconds is well documented in the schema, while operationName has no schema description. The description adds meaning for operationName by explaining that omitting it lists all pending renders, but it does not define the expected format or source of operationName, leaving a gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check a pending Veo operation, with the behavior when finished and the listing mode when operationName is omitted. It is clear enough to distinguish from generation siblings by the 'pending operation' framing, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with flow_list_assets or flow_generate_video.

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?

It gives a concrete usage rule: call without operationName to list all pending renders, and optionally wait via waitSeconds. It does not provide explicit when-not conditions or comparisons to sibling tools such as flow_list_assets, but the core usage contexts are clear.

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