ncloud_cm2_list_domains

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool fails with HTTP 403 for Sub Account keys, confirmed by vendor support and a dated verification. This is exactly the kind of auth/precondition context annotations do not carry. Minor deduction for the provenance aside adding noise rather than behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope and auth constraints in a compact form. The 'confirmed by Ncloud support; verified 2026-10-02 with NCP_ADMINISTRATOR' clause is slightly over-detailed but supports the auth claim.

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?

A read-only list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema: the description covers purpose, scope, and the critical auth precondition, which is enough for correct invocation. Pagination behavior is implied by the schema rather than the description, a minor gap.

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% across all six parameters (page, pageSize, orgNo, dcvType, validState, domainAddress), so filters are already documented. The description adds no syntax, default, or filtering semantics beyond the schema; baseline 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+resource ('List registered domains and their DCV validation state') and scopes it to Certificate Manager 2.0, distinguishing it from siblings like ncloud_cm2_get_dcv_status and ncloud_cm2_register_domain. The public-zone qualifier further narrows the resource set.

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 clear applicability conditions — public zone only, main-account API key required — which tell the agent whether it can even call the tool. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g., for private zones), so it falls short of the 'alternatives' bar.

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