ncloud_get_contract_summary_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are aggregated/grouped with counts, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior despite pageNo/pageSize parameters, nor whether results are scans over the month.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return semantics. No redundancy or filler.

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 aggregate list tool with a fully documented schema and an annotation covering safety, the description covers purpose and shape adequately. Minor gaps: no pagination notes and no differentiation from the other contract-count tools, but nothing critical is missing for a correct invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (region codes, month format, status enum, page size, etc.). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get contract summary list') and adds the return shape (contracts grouped by region and contract type with counts for a given month). This is clear, but it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling contract tools (get_contract_usage_list, get_contract_demand_cost_list), which an agent might easily confuse.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the other contract/billing siblings. The specified month is the only hint of context; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.

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