광고그룹 단건 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no auth/permission notes, no behavior when the adgroup is missing).

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though this brevity is what leaves the usage and behavioral gaps.

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 simple annotated read tool the coverage is adequate, but with no output schema the description says only '상세 정보' without indicating what the detail comprises, leaving the return shape entirely unspecified.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the customerId fallback to NAVER_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID. The description merely repeats the nccAdgroupId identifier and adds no syntax or format detail.

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/retrieve), resource (광고그룹/adgroup) and cardinality (하나의, single), which implicitly separates it from list_adgroups. It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling tool explicitly.

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 singular '하나의' hints at single-record lookup versus a list call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_adgroups or get_adgroup_targets.

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