ncloud_get_contract_demand_cost_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds genuine value by naming what the response contains (usage quantities, pricing, discount amounts) and the 3-month window restriction, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or permission requirements for the role-gated filters.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the resource and scope lead, and the period constraint and return contents follow. Slightly more could be squeezed into the second sentence to route the agent among siblings without bloating it.

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 an 11-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and the maximum time window. It omits any hint that several filters (isPartner, isOrganization, memberNoList) are role-gated, which is the one meaningful 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%, so all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates the contract-level scope and the 3-month window, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema entries for startMonth/endMonth already provide.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get contract-level billing cost list') and narrows scope to contract granularity, so an agent can tell it apart from a product-level billing tool by name. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the near-identical siblings (ncloud_get_product_demand_cost_list, ncloud_get_demand_cost_list, ncloud_get_contract_usage_list), leaving the distinction to inference.

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 states what the tool returns but never says when to choose it over the closely named alternatives in the billing family, nor does it state prerequisites such as master/partner role for the member-scoped filters. The only guidance is the 'max 3 months' range constraint, which is a limit rather than a usage condition.

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