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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit goes to what is added: the note that listing is free (no quota/cost concern) and that this tool returns ids rather than files. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination behavior of the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the downstream use, then the alternative for uploads. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the title or name.

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 state that ids are returned and how they are consumed downstream, which covers the main gap. Minor omissions remain (result ordering, whether names/metadata accompany the ids, behavior when limit is hit), but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (q, kind, limit) are documented in the schema itself with an enum and a max of 200. The description adds no filtering syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already carries, 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 concrete verb and resource ('view ids of my library files: image/video/audio') and immediately says what those ids are for — feeding package inputs whose type is 'asset'. No sibling tool lists assets, so there is no realistic confusion with vidia_list_packages or vidia_list_runs.

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?

Explicitly frames the trigger (populate asset-type package input fields, array when multiple) and routes the agent away from this tool for creation ('uploads happen via the web library or REST/SDK POST /api/v1/assets'). Both the when and the when-not are stated, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid calling the wrong tool.

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