ncloud_sens_list_sms_unsubscribes

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

The description adds several behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies that startTime/endTime are epoch milliseconds, explains registerType value mapping (C=ARS, M=manual), and notes that an empty HTTP 404 reply was observed live when the service has no records. This 404 quirk is especially valuable for distinguishing an empty result from an error, exceeding the annotation's scope.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by key parameter semantics and a notable edge case. It avoids filler, though it slightly duplicates schema information about epoch milliseconds. Overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 description is adequate for a read-only list operation but omits any explanation of the response shape (no output schema) and provides no usage guidance relative to siblings. It does include the 404 edge case, which is critical for correct handling. The lack of response structure and alternative routing leaves gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema covers all six parameters with 100% description coverage, including the epoch milliseconds format and numeric ranges. The description repeats the epoch ms note and mentions registerType, which is not a parameter in the schema, adding little meaningful parameter value 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 clearly states the tool lists SMS unsubscribe numbers and gives the exact HTTP endpoint. The verb 'List' plus resource 'SMS unsubscribe numbers' is unambiguous, and including the endpoint further disambiguates it from the register/delete sibling 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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like ncloud_sens_register_sms_unsubscribes or ncloud_sens_delete_sms_unsubscribes. It does not state under what circumstances an agent should select this tool over others, leaving usage decisions to the name and schema.

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