ncloud_get_contract_summary_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by indicating a read operation (get/returns). It adds useful context about grouping and month aggregation, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination defaults or filtering constraints beyond what the schema offers. With annotations covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality and return shape (grouped counts). It doesn't detail response structure, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward. Slight gap in not mentioning pagination or optional filters, but those are in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter meanings. It implies that contractMonth drives the 'specified month' and that region/contractType may influence grouping, but it doesn't add explicit detail beyond schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a contract summary list, with specific detail on grouping by region and contract type with counts for a specified month. This pairs a specific verb (get/returns) with a clear resource and scope, distinguishing it from related contract tools like usage or demand cost lists.

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 implies the tool is used when a summary of contracts is needed for a month, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of sibling tools like get_contract_usage_list, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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