ncloud_get_contract_usage_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds useful context about the returned content (metering type, usage quantity, service period) and the 3-month limit. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or any other non-obvious aspects, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Get contract usage list', and includes the key return details and constraint without any redundant wording. Every sentence adds value and the structure is efficient.

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 schema is rich and the readOnly annotation is present, but the description is minimal for a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain pagination, default page size, or how this tool differs from similar contract-related list tools. The description provides a basic understanding but leaves gaps for effective selection and invocation.

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?

All 12 parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as the meaning of 'per contract' or 'specified months' which map to existing contractNo and month fields. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get contract usage list' and lists specific return fields (metering type, usage quantity, service period) for specified months. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ncloud_get_contract_usage_list_by_daily or ncloud_get_contract_summary_list, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the 3-month range constraint, which is a parameter limitation rather than usage guidance. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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