check_video

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 blocking/wait behavior (poll up to 0-300s), a real side effect (saves the video to disk and returns its path), the non-terminal return shape (status message plus job_id), and error behavior ('failures raise an error'). It omits file naming/location and any auth or rate-limit context, 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and timing, then the success path, then the retry path, then failures. Every sentence adds an actionable fact with no 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description correctly explains the return values (file path vs. status message with job_id) and the error case. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter polling tool; only the saved file's destination/naming convention is left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the key parameter by giving wait_seconds' range and default (0-300, default 45) beyond the schema's bare default. job_id's meaning and its reuse across polls are implied rather than defined, which is the only real 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 ('Wait for a video job started by start_video') and names the sibling that must precede it, so an agent can immediately place it in the video pipeline rather than confusing it with generate_image or generate_audio.

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 a clear precondition (only after start_video) and an explicit repeated-call loop ('call check_video again with the same job_id until the path is returned'). It does not need to name alternatives since none of the other siblings poll a job, but it stops short of stating any when-not condition or termination limit on retries.

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