ncloud_mailer_get_send_block_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the HTTP GET method, the response shape (registerStatus, expectedDeleteDate, content[] with actionType C/D, sendResultCode), and the deprecation/sunset context. Since there is no output schema, this disclosure is especially valuable.

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 dense and information-rich, with the legacy/alternative context and response details all earning their place. It loses a point because the main action verb is delayed by the long bracketed deprecation note, slightly reducing front-loading.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields and action semantics, while the schema handles pagination, sorting, and region parameters. The legacy constraints and replacement tools are also covered, so an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly.

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 five parameters are already documented. The description reinforces targetAddress through the endpoint example but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific operation: retrieving send-block history and current block status for a single address, with the endpoint and expected response fields. This clearly distinguishes it from the surrounding mailer and SENS tools.

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?

It explicitly marks the tool as legacy, restricts it to migrated projects and a ~12-month availability window, and names ncloud_sens_send_mail / ncloud_sens_list_mail_requests as the new alternatives. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance.

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