광고그룹 타게팅 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating which targeting categories are returned. It does not, however, say what happens when no targeting is configured (empty result vs. error), which would be genuinely additive.

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 the verb and resource up front and no filler. The parenthetical enumeration is compact and informative. Not padded, though it does not use the space to add usage or behavioral detail.

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 2-parameter read tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece: what targeting fields the response contains. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Optional gaps (empty-targeting behavior, ordering/nesting of results) remain, keeping it from a 5.

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 both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the customerId fallback to NAVER_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (조회합니다) and a clearly bounded resource (광고그룹에 설정된 타게팅), and it even enumerates the targeting dimensions covered (요일·시간, 지역, 매체, PC/모바일). This makes it easy to distinguish from generic siblings like get_adgroup. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls just 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The read-only nature is only inferable from the annotations and the verb '조회합니다'. An agent gets no routing help for the many list_*/get_* siblings.

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