Get a job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the important behavioral fact that this is a polling endpoint for async jobs started with wait=false, which is not derivable from annotations. It doesn't discuss behavior for pending/failed jobs, but the output schema carries the return shape.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the usage condition. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 an output schema covering return values, annotations covering the safety profile, and the sole parameter fully documented, the description only needed to supply the async/polling context — and it does. Nothing required to invoke it correctly 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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains that jobId is the id returned by a generate_* tool. The description's "by id" adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so this is baseline territory with the schema doing 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get a job) plus exactly what is returned — status and the resulting video/image URL — and names the job type space (video/UGC/image). An agent can distinguish it from list_jobs and the generate_* 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?

"Use this to poll jobs created with wait=false" gives a concrete triggering condition tied to a sibling behavior, which is the key usage signal. It stops short of explicitly naming list_jobs as the alternative for enumerating jobs, so it falls just under a 5.

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