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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world). The description adds two traits beyond them: results are returned in recency order, and the call is free. It says nothing about pagination behavior or what a run record contains.

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, purpose front-loaded, zero padding. It is efficient, though terse to the point of omitting useful scoping 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?

A simple read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented params needs little prose. Still, the description never clarifies the run/package/asset distinction among siblings or how the optional filters combine, leaving a real selection gap.

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 three self-documented optional params (limit, state filter, offset), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond it, which is the expected baseline.

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 (list my creations/projects) and adds default ordering (most recent first). It does not differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as vidia_list_packages or vidia_list_assets, and the name/description mismatch (runs vs 'projects') leaves a small ambiguity.

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?

'무료입니다' (it's free) hints at a cost consideration but is not real guidance. There is no statement of when to use this versus vidia_list_packages, vidia_list_assets, or vidia_get_run, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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