Get video job

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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: the 45s default block, that the tool waits for completion, and that the video is downloaded and returned as a side effect. The idempotency claim aligns with idempotentHint=true, and the download explains readOnlyHint=false. No contradiction, though timeouts/failure behavior is left unstated.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the wait-on-completion behavior is front-loaded and the idempotency caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, yet the description still tells the agent the video is delivered on completion. Blocking duration and idempotency are covered; only timeout/error handling is absent, which is minor for this 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 description coverage is 100%, so jobId's provenance and waitSeconds' default/0 semantics are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions the 45s default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Check a video job and wait for it', plus what happens on completion (video downloaded and returned). It is clearly distinct from the create/extend/edit siblings in that it only inspects an existing job. It stops short of naming a sibling it could be confused with, but no sibling is a close competitor.

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?

Implies polling usage by noting a default wait and stating 'calling again is safe', which tells the agent repeated calls are acceptable. It does not say when to prefer waiting vs. checking once, nor reference generate_video/extend_video/edit_video as the producers of the job handle in narrative form — that context lives only in the schema.

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