캠페인 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 covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond the purpose sentence — no note on what happens when the campaignId is unknown, what account context is used, or rate/scope caveats.

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 tight sentence with the identifier front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though with only one sentence there is no structure or prioritization to speak of.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema docs, this is sufficient to invoke correctly. However, with no output schema present, the description could have sketched what '상세 정보' comprises; that omission keeps it at minimum-viable rather than complete.

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 (campaignId, customerId) are already documented with format hints, including the fallback to NAVER_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID. The description only echoes nccCampaignId and adds no syntax or constraint 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 / retrieve) and resource (캠페인 하나 / a single campaign) and keys it on nccCampaignId. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_campaigns by virtue of the singular scope, though it never names that alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: the singular '하나의' and the sibling pair list_campaigns/get_campaign make the select-single-record intent inferable. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_campaigns, no prerequisite or error-condition guidance.

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