Check a video upload job

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds contextual behavior beyond annotations: the tool is a fallback for create_post timeouts and the job id comes from that specific failure message. It does not fully describe response statuses, but with strong annotations the added context is valuable.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The key fact (check by id) is front-loaded, followed by the exact when-to-use condition and a useful reassurance. Each sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only status lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: the scenario, the id source, and the likely self-resolution of the job. It could be slightly more explicit about what to do if the status still reports processing, but the current guidance implies waiting rather than retrying.

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%: job_id and account are fully described in the input schema. The description adds a small note that the id is in the create_post timeout message, but that essentially restates the schema's 'reported by a timed-out create_post.' Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 ('Check') and resource ('a Bluesky video transcoding job by id'), which is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools. The wording clearly conveys an operation on a video upload job, not a generic status endpoint.

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?

Explicitly says when this tool is needed: only when create_post reported that a video was still processing after giving up waiting. Also notes the job usually finishes on its own, which tells the agent not to overuse polling and gives real decision context.

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