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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and the closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully handled. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing returned fields (estimate points and working time) and that the call is free, but says nothing about pagination despite limit/offset params.

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 core purpose, followed by return-value and cost facts. No padding or redundancy.

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 an optional-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the description covers purpose, returned data and cost adequately. Only pagination behavior is left unmentioned, a minor gap with no output schema to reference.

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% with enums and bounds documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no filtering or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (찾습니다) and resource (발행된 패키지 / video production templates), and scopes it to published, video-capable packages. This is clear enough to distinguish a listing call from vidia_get_package, though the sibling relationship is not named explicitly.

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?

It conveys the purpose (finding packages to make videos) which implies when to use it, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the sibling vidia_get_package for fetching a single package. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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