ncloud_databox_list_import_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no note that results can be date-filtered, no indication of ordering or result volume. For a list endpoint with paging parameters, this is a thin behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

The schema fully documents all five parameters and the readOnlyHint covers safety, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Still, for a paginated, date-filterable list operation the description omits any mention of paging behavior or result scope, leaving a small but real 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% – every parameter (dataBoxNo, pageNo, pageSize, applyStartDate, applyEndDate) carries its own description including formats and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 ('List') and resource ('file import requests of a Data Box'), which is enough to separate it from the singular 'get_import_request' sibling and from export-request tools. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (the dataBoxNo is required), and no pointer to alternatives such as ncloud_databox_get_import_request for a single request or ncloud_databox_list_export_requests for the opposite direction. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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