ncloud_get_log_usage

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the read is scoped to storage capacity and usage, but says nothing about units, aggregation period, region dependency, or return shape, which would be useful behavioral context.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded after the verb. No padding, though it is minimal enough that it leaves little room for the guidance a healthy definition would carry.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the what but not the return contents or how the region default affects results. It is minimally adequate but an agent cannot predict what the response contains.

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 the single regionCode parameter (with its defaulting behavior and example values) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 a specific resource ('Cloud Log Analytics storage capacity and usage'), which is concrete and distinguishable from the many count/search/export log siblings. It stops short of naming any alternative tool, so it doesn't reach the sibling-differentiation bar of a 5.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the numerous log-related siblings. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and description.

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