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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation has side effects, whether it requires special permissions ('power-user' hints but doesn't specify), whether it consumes the queue, or what the response contains. The word 'poll' suggests a read-only pattern, but this is not explicit.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and a rough functional label. It avoids filler, though 'power-user' is somewhat vague and the terse style sacrifices useful context.

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 the description does not explain what the tool returns, such as status fields or media URLs. Given the many sibling tools focused on video generation and status, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently decide when to call this tool and how to interpret its response.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter queue_id, and the schema already explains that it comes from video_queue or generate_video. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific action ('retrieve'), the resource ('video'), and the purpose ('status/media poll'). It is clear enough to understand the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_generation_status or wait_for_video.

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 phrase 'status/media poll' implies this tool is for polling video status or media by queue_id, which provides some usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over get_generation_status, wait_for_video, or other sibling tools, and no exclusion criteria.

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