ncloud_get_credit_history_list

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying what the response contains (credit balance, usage history, validity periods), but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 concise, only two sentences, and front-loads the primary action. It avoids unnecessary details and every phrase adds value. This is an ideal length for a simple list-query tool.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return payload (balance, usage, validity periods). It does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema's pageNo/pageSize parameters already hint at this. The tool is moderately complex with 8 optional parameters, but the schema covers them fully, and the description provides sufficient context for selection.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters, which is 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond a vague hint of 'all or specific credits', which is already reflected in the schema (e.g., discountNoList, memberNoList). The schema carries the heavy lifting, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('credit history list'), and clearly explains the returned data (credit balance, usage history per service, validity periods). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and high-level description.

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