ncloud_cdnplus_get_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context by specifying the type of data (transfer/traffic volume) and the ability to query multiple instances and a date range, but does not disclose response structure, pagination, or edge cases. It aligns with annotations and adds some value, but not deeply.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence packs the essential action and scope with no redundant words. It is optimally concise and structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries some burden for return values. It states the high-level data type (transfer/traffic volume) but omits details like per-instance granularity or units. For a simple read query, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 all four parameters documented (formats, defaults, array type). The description reinforces that multiple instances and a date range are involved, but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('CDN+ usage data'), and clarifies scope ('transfer/traffic volume', 'one or more instances', 'date range'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ncloud_globalcdn_get_usage and ncloud_cdnplus_get_monitoring.

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 description gives clear context (usage data, transfer/traffic volume, multiple instances, date range) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like monitoring tools, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly addressed.

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