ncloud_get_discount_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds some behavioral context by stating it returns discounts 'assigned to the account' and includes 'validity periods and amounts,' which clarifies the response scope. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default filtering, or the effect of parameters like isPartner or isValidDiscount.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and then elaborates with the key return elements. There is no wasted text, and it is 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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief to provide adequate context. It does not explain how to use the date range, filtering, or account-type parameters, nor does it describe the response structure beyond 'validity periods and amounts.' The tool would be hard to invoke correctly without consulting each parameter schema individually.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'product discounts, credits, coins' maps to the discountTypeCode enum, adding minimal semantic value. Otherwise, it does not explain parameter interactions or provide syntax details beyond what the schema already documents.

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's purpose: 'Get discount list' with a specific resource and scope, enumerating the types of discounts (product discounts, credits, coins) and what is returned (validity periods and amounts). It differentiates from sibling tools like ncloud_get_coin_history_list and ncloud_get_credit_history_list by explicitly covering all discount types, but it does not name alternatives directly.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without mentioning any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to other discount-related tools. The presence of 9 optional parameters and many sibling tools makes this a significant gap.

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