Get run status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. Beyond annotations it discloses the return values that matter (IN_PROGRESS with a next_action, SUCCEEDED with video_url, FAILED) and the polling cadence, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs since there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the polling procedure and terminal states. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations covering behavior beyond safety, the description carries the load well: it explains inputs, the polling loop, and every terminal outcome including the returned video_url. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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%, but the single parameter is nearly self-documenting and the schema carries the run_ pattern. The description adds the useful provenance detail that run_id comes from make_ugc or make_faceless, connecting the parameter to its source rather than just restating it.

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 ('Check the status of a video generation') and immediately anchors it to the sibling tools that create the run (make_ugc, make_faceless). An agent can distinguish this polling tool from its generation siblings without opening any schema.

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 operational guidance: pass the run_id, poll every ~5 seconds while status is IN_PROGRESS, and stop when a terminal state is reached. This tells the agent exactly when the tool applies and how to sequence repeated calls, which is the critical usage question for a status-polling tool.

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