ncloud_ses_get_snapshot_schedule_history

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent already knows the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether the history is paginated, what fields are returned, or how scheduling events are represented. With readOnlyHint covering the main risk, there is no contradiction, but also no added behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently. It is appropriately concise for a simple get operation, though it sacrifices some useful guidance to stay short.

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 minimal and leaves out potentially important context. It does not clarify differences from the very similar sibling ncloud_ses_get_snapshot_history, nor does it mention pagination or the nature of the returned history. With no output schema and no return-value description, an agent may struggle to fully understand what it will receive or how to choose this tool over the close sibling.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: pageNo, pageSize, and serviceGroupInstanceNo all have descriptions. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the description does not need to compensate. It provides no additional parameter context, which is acceptable at the baseline score of 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 and resource: 'Get the snapshot scheduling history' for a 'Search Engine Service cluster'. This clearly identifies the operation and target resource. It differentiates from some siblings by the word 'scheduling', but it does not explicitly call out the closely related ncloud_ses_get_snapshot_history, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer ncloud_ses_get_snapshot_history or how it relates to snapshot schedule management tools. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions. The usage context is entirely implied by the description.

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