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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds two facts annotations cannot express: the download links expire after 1 hour and the call is free of charge. It does not say what happens if the run is not yet complete, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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, with the payload contents front-loaded before the cost note. No filler, though the enumerated list of deliverables could be trimmed if it duplicated an output description (there is none, so it earns its place).

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, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming the deliverables and the posting title/description. The 1-hour link lifetime is also disclosed. What's missing is failure behavior for unfinished/invalid runs, which an agent would want.

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% and the single parameter run_id is documented in-schema as '제작 번호'. The description adds no extra meaning to run_id (format, range, where to obtain it), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('완성된 제작의 결과물...을 받습니다') and enumerates exactly what comes back (완성 영상·썸네일·자막, 다운로드 링크, 게시용 제목·설명). It is clearly distinct from vidia_get_run or vidia_start_run in intent, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'완성된 제작의' implies the run must already be finished, which is useful implied guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative for getting metadata about in-progress runs (e.g. vidia_get_run).

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