ncloud_sens_list_alimtalk_requests

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already known; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: an empty HTTP 404 means no matching records, noted as observed live with an unknown requestId. This non-obvious quirk is valuable because a naive agent might interpret 404 as an error. It also discloses the time-window length limits, even if those are repeated in the schema.

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 three tight sentences: the first declares the operation and endpoint, the second lays out required parameter combinations, and the third captures a live-observed edge case. Every sentence earns its place and there is zero filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before the constraints.

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?

The tool is complex (14 parameters, no output schema), but the schema carries detailed parameter semantics, so the description only needs to add combination rules and behavioral quirks, which it does. It covers the mandatory selectors, the 404 edge case, and the default serviceId resolution hints are still in the schema. The only notable omission is an explicit mention of pagination flow via nextToken, but the parameter description already implies that.

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%, with all 14 parameters documented including required-combination logic (e.g., plusFriendId is required when requestId is not given). The description restates those combinations but adds little new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the score sits at the baseline 3.

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 verb-resource pair (List AlimTalk delivery requests) plus the explicit REST endpoint, so an agent can tell this is the list operation for AlimTalk requests. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like ncloud_sens_list_alimtalk_channels, so it doesn't earn a 5, but the resource and endpoint are clear enough. The meaning is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 gives clear invocation guidance: requestId alone, or requestStartTime+requestEndTime (≤31 days), or completeStartTime+completeEndTime (≤24 h), with plusFriendId required unless requestId is given. This tells the agent how to call the tool correctly, but it doesn't discuss when to use this over a sibling status check or channel list. The context is implied rather than explicitly contrasting alternatives.

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