ncloud_cm2_get_dcv_status

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

Annotations already mark this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: it requires a main-account API key because Certificate Manager 2.0 rejects Sub Account keys with HTTP 403. That auth caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait worth disclosing.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scoping constraint, but the trailing parenthetical provenance ('confirmed by Ncloud support; verified 2026-10-02 with NCP_ADMINISTRATOR') is more verbose than the agent strictly needs, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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 tool with full parameter coverage and a safety annotation, the description is essentially complete: it covers the operation, the zone constraint, the auth requirement, and what is returned (the DNS record). Without an output schema it could still say more about DCV status values, but nothing essential is missing.

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 both parameters (certificateNo, domainAddress) are fully documented in structured data. The description hints at the certificate-domain relationship ('for a requested SSL certificate') but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (domain-control-validation status), plus the adjacent deliverable (the DNS record to set) for a requested SSL certificate. It scopes to Certificate Manager 2.0 and to public zones only, which distinguishes it from other cm2_* siblings.

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?

Gives a clear usage constraint ('Public zone only') and the context that it applies to a requested SSL certificate, which implicitly routes the agent to DCV-related tasks. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative tool or a when-not condition.

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