ncloud_kms_get_public_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: only asymmetric keys of specific algorithms are supported, and the returned version defaults to the latest enabled one. It omits rate limits or response-shape details, but for a read tool this is solid added value.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose and applicability first and the version-default caveat second. No filler, no redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool with read-only annotations and a fully covered schema, the definition supplies what an agent needs: what it returns, the key-type restriction, and which version is selected by default. Return-value detail is not required since no output schema exists, though a brief note on the response content would make it fully complete.

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% and the schema already documents both keyTag and keyVersion, including the 'omit for latest version; disabled versions cannot be queried' note. The description's version-defaulting sentence largely restates the schema, so it adds only marginal meaning over structured data.

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 the public key) and adds an applicability constraint (asymmetric keys, RSA2048 or ECDSA only), which distinguishes it from symmetric-key siblings like encrypt/decrypt. It does not name an alternative tool, so it is a clear standalone purpose rather than a routing-quality one.

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 applicability constraint (asymmetric keys only) and the version-default behavior imply when the tool is valid, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no reference to a sibling such as get_key_info. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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