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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cost behavior ('무료입니다') that no annotation conveys, which is genuinely useful for deciding whether to call it, though it does not disclose pagination or error behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, workflow use second, cost last. Efficient and easy to scan.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so adequately (description and input keys). Combined with annotations covering safety and the cost note, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the input-key structure itself is not detailed.

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 slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its origin. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (봅니다) and resource scope (one package's description and input fields), and singles out the singular retrieval in contrast to the plural sibling vidia_list_packages, which it cites as the source of the slug. Clear, though it does not explicitly state what distinguishes it from the list tool in prose.

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 sentence '견적·제작의 input 은 이 칸의 key 로 채웁니다' implies the downstream workflow (fill vidia_quote / vidia_start_run inputs using these keys), so usage context is inferred. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance or named alternative is given.

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