광고 소재 단건 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not explain rate limits, auth requirements, or what '상세 정보' includes, so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the identifying parameter is front-loaded. It is efficiently sized for a simple lookup tool, though it is so terse that it conveys little beyond the title.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and a complete schema, the description is minimally sufficient — the schema handles the customerId fallback and there is no output schema to explain. However, it gives no sense of what fields the returned detail contains, leaving the agent to infer the value of calling it.

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% and the schema already documents both adId (nccAdId) and the optional customerId with its fallback to NAVER_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID. The description only restates the identifier concept, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for fully-documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (조회) and resource (광고 소재) plus the single-record scope ('하나의'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_ads. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 word '단건' (single) plus the required nccAdId implies this is the lookup-by-id tool rather than the listing tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus list_ads or get_campaign/get_adgroup, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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