Check a staged container

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the possible statuses (IN_PROGRESS, FINISHED, ERROR, EXPIRED) and the failure-reason detail. This adds useful behavioral context about what the tool returns without contradicting the annotations.

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 status enumeration and followed by practical use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only status check with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers output semantics and likely user intents. It could mention that the container_id comes from staging, but the overall context is clear enough for an agent to select and call the 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 coverage is only 50%: account is documented, but container_id has no schema description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining that container_id identifies the staged container, nor does it mention the account parameter at all. Description adds little to parameter understanding.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a status check for a staged container and enumerates the exact status values returned. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_post or get_posts because 'container' is a staging resource, though the description does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives.

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?

The description gives two concrete use cases: checking a slow video and verifying whether a staged post is still within its 24-hour window. These are clear contextual triggers, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tool.

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