ncloud_dns_get_query_count

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get ... monitoring data' aligns with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of aggregation behavior, time range limits, domain filtering semantics, or what the returned data contains. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes minimal value beyond what the annotation and schema already convey.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and directly states the resource and scope. Perfectly appropriate size for the information conveyed.

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 is relatively simple with only two parameters and a readOnly annotation, but no output schema exists. The description does not indicate the return format, time range behavior, or how domainId affects the data (e.g., aggregate vs. specific domain). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this tool meets its needs, warranting a slightly below-average completeness score.

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%: both 'domainId' ('Filter by specific domain ID') and 'baseTimeUnit' ('Time unit for aggregation') have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so it neither helps nor harms. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 clear action ('Get') and resource ('DNS query count monitoring data') with a scope ('for Global DNS domains'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the similar sibling ncloud_gtm_get_query_count, which also provides query count but for Global Traffic Manager. The name and phrase 'Global DNS domains' provide some differentiation, but the description alone would not clearly tell an agent when to choose one over the other.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the existence of ncloud_gtm_get_query_count and other DNS monitoring tools in the sibling list, explicit guidance on context or alternatives would be valuable but is entirely absent.

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