Collect Flow media when it is ready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses long-polling up to timeout_seconds, that finished media is downloaded as a side effect, that chat messages are returned, the three status values, and that the call is free. It stops short of saying where downloads land or whether repeated calls re-download the same media, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the wait bound, then branches cleanly by status. It is a dense paragraph rather than a list, but nearly every clause carries operational instruction; the trailing 'Free.' is terse and useful rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — it does, covering status, the failures message, and that finished media plus interim chat are returned. For a 4-parameter polling tool this is nearly complete; the only omission is the shape/location of downloaded media.

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% (since and timeout_seconds are documented; media_ids and project_id have no schema descriptions). The description compensates by explaining timeout_seconds as a wait bound and by clarifying the two selection modes — explicit media_ids, or 'since from the earlier result' to take all new media — adding meaning the bare 'created after it' schema text does not. project_id is never explained, leaving one 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks on media the agent is making', downloads what is finished) and names the generating siblings (generate_video, flow_approve) as the source. It is clearly a media-collection poller, distinguishable from flow_status or flow_credits.

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?

Gives explicit routing for each outcome: 'completed' means done, 'pending' means tell the user and call again (with a 1-5 minute expectation), 'failed' means stop waiting and suggest flow_credits for the refund. It also tells the agent how to select media (media_ids vs since from the earlier result), so when-to-use and what-to-do-next are fully covered.

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