Check a video upload job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the contextual behavior that the job 'usually finishes on its own', which is helpful but does not detail return states or poll semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and conditional usage. Every clause earns its place, and there is zero redundancy beyond the schema.

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?

For a simple read-only status checker with fully covered parameters and complete annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of output shape or error handling, but no output schema exists and the tool's low complexity makes those less critical. The guidance about when to use it is complete enough for an agent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters (job_id, account) have descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is self-sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check a Bluesky video transcoding job by id'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from nearby siblings like create_post by explaining it is a status-check follow-up. The title and description align.

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 explicitly says 'Only needed when create_post reported that a video was still processing when it gave up waiting,' which gives a clear when-to-use. It also notes 'The job usually finishes on its own,' implying it is often unnecessary, but it does not name an alternative tool or explicitly map to a fallback action. This is clear guidance with a minor gap in explicit alternatives.

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