키워드 단건 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 nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on what happens when the keywordId is unknown, no permission/account-scoping caveat despite customerId defaulting to an env var.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though it is perhaps too terse to earn a 5 given the gaps noted above.

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 one-entity read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate — the agent knows exactly what is fetched and by which key. It lacks only error/not-found behavior, which is a minor omission.

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 keywordId (with an example value) and customerId (with its env-var fallback) are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the lookup key, adding no format or fallback detail beyond it, 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?

States a specific verb (조회) and a singular resource (키워드 하나) with the lookup key (nccKeywordId), so an agent can distinguish it from list_keywords. It stops short of naming the sibling or clarifying scope beyond the singular/plural naming convention.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this when you already hold a keywordId, nor points to list_keywords for discovery. The singular phrasing only implies the distinction, which is the weakest form of guidance.

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