ncloud_get_cost_relation_code_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool as read-only. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns a mapping and enumerates the specific entities involved, giving useful context about the output beyond the annotation.

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, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes meaning: the first states what it does, the second explains its utility.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description provides a high-level indication of return content (the mapping), but it does not detail the response structure or explain how the optional filter parameters affect results. Adequate for a simple list tool, but leaves some gaps.

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 all six parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, and thus the score remains at the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Get cost relation code list') and resource, and specifies what the tool returns (mapping between contract types, product item kinds, rating types, metering types, demand types, and product categories). This differentiates it from sibling cost tools like ncloud_get_price_list or ncloud_get_product_category_list by focusing on code relationships rather than prices or categories.

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 phrase 'Useful for understanding billing code relationships' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would warrant a 5.

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