ncloud_get_activity_detail

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful context about the internal mechanism (narrow time-range query, filter by ID), which explains why eventTime is required. However, it does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the event falls outside the narrow window) or what specific fields the 'detailed information' 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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose upfront, and the second explains the underlying mechanism. This is highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 a simple two-parameter read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers purpose and mechanism. The absence of an output schema means it could optionally describe what 'detailed information' includes, but the name and the simplicity of the tool mitigate this gap, making the description sufficiently 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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters with formats and purposes. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between eventTime and activityId (search narrow window, then filter), but it provides no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific cloud activity event') and explains the unique lookup mechanism (querying with a narrow time range and filtering by activityId). This clearly distinguishes it from broad list tools like ncloud_get_activity_logs by emphasizing the targeted, detail-oriented nature of the operation.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the mention of a narrow time range and activityId filtering tells the agent this is for targeted detail lookups requiring an approximate event time, but no alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use scenarios are stated. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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