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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses three operationally important facts an agent cannot infer: no points are deducted, the quote expires after 10 minutes, and the returned id is the sole key that can start production. This is exactly the kind of lifecycle/cost context annotations cannot carry.

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 what is returned, then cost, then validity/prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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 usefully enumerates what the quote contains (budget points, estimated cost, scene plan) and adds the expiry and prerequisite that govern the next step. Combined with a 100%-documented 7-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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% (package, input, mode, title, loop_policy, loop_retries, problem_policy all documented with enums), so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description only refers generically to '입력값' and adds no extra meaning about parameter values or how 'input' keys map to vidia_get_package.

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 names a specific action and artifact — it returns a production quote (minimum/recommended budget points, estimated cost, scene plan) for the supplied input. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling vidia_start_run by stating that production can only be launched from this quote's id, so the agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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 clearly establishes the context of use: call this to obtain a quote before production, because starting a run requires the quote id. It does not explicitly name vidia_start_run as the alternative/next step or state any exclusion (e.g., what to do if a quote already exists), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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