ncloud_gtm_get_geo_cidr_map_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys the safe read-only nature. The description adds only that it retrieves 'detailed information' but does not disclose what that detail includes, whether any authorization is needed, or how errors are surfaced. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given one parameter, full schema coverage, and a read-only annotation, the description is minimally adequate for a simple getter. However, it does not mention the return format or how to interpret 'detailed information', and it lacks guidance on the relationship to the list tool. It is complete enough for basic selection but leaves gaps for an agent expecting a fully self-contained description.

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 coverage is 100% because mapId is described as 'Map ID to query'. The tool description adds context that this map is a 'Geo or CIDR map', which clarifies the entity type, but it does not offer syntax, format, or how to obtain valid IDs. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific Geo or CIDR map'), which is specific and not a tautology. It distinguishes itself from the list sibling ('list_geo_cidr_maps') by emphasizing 'specific' and 'detailed', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_geo_cidr_maps should be used first to obtain map IDs, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The context signals show a related list tool, but the description does not leverage that.

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