Wait for a Seedance video to finish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers key behaviors: polling with automatic backoff, timeout behavior (doesn't cancel), typical time estimates, and return of final result including video URL. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but for a polling tool this is reasonable. The description adds value beyond what structured metadata could provide.

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?

The description is three sentences long, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second specifies when to use it, and the third provides critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundant phrases.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, usage context, timeout behavior, and auto-backoff. An output schema exists, so return value details are handled there. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'seedance_get_video' (if that tool exists for non-polling status checks). Given the tool's polling nature and the presence of other sibling tools, the description is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter already has a clear explanation. The description adds some context (e.g., 'task ID from seedance_create_video', timing guidance for timeout_seconds) but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 states that the tool polls a Seedance task until completion or timeout and returns the final result including the video URL. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by specifying when to call it: 'right after seedance_create_video whenever the user wants the finished video rather than a task ID.' The title also reinforces the purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Call this right after seedance_create_video...') and includes practical advice about adjusting timeout for longer jobs. It also clarifies that a timeout does not cancel the task and that the task can be waited on again. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for different use cases.

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