ncloud_sens_list_mail_requests

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a read-only operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the requirement of a time period and the ISO 8601 format, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose any other behavior like pagination limits or response shape beyond what the schema already covers.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then a key constraint. It is concise and well-structured without any redundant information. It could be slightly longer to include alternative tool guidance, but it's not overly verbose.

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 read-only list tool with 14 parameters fully documented in the schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core action and required parameters. The schema provides detailed descriptions for serviceId and other filters, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. No output schema exists, but that's not a gap given the tool's nature.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description repeats the fact that fromDateTime and toDateTime are required and in ISO 8601, which is already in the schema. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('SENS mail send requests') and includes the endpoint. It distinguishes itself as being specifically about mail, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like ncloud_sens_list_sms_requests or ncloud_sens_list_alimtalk_requests, though the name makes that implicit.

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 mentions that fromDateTime and toDateTime are required, which is a usage constraint, but it doesn't provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other SENS list request tools). No when-not-to-use information is given.

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