연관 키워드 및 검색량 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context — the hint cap of 5 and that results are independent of ad registration — but says nothing about rate limits, quota, or response shape. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose first, then usage condition, then the hint constraint. No filler, and the core capability is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names what is returned (related keywords and monthly search volume/clicks/competition). Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the response format/pagination is unspecified, which is minor.

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 the schema already documents customerId, showDetail, and hintKeywords. The description's '힌트는 최대 5개' merely restates the schema's maxItems=5, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb+resource: retrieves related keywords plus monthly search volume, clicks, and competition level for hint keywords, and names the underlying Keyword Tool API. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_keywords (registered keywords) and get_stats, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('used for keyword discovery') and a qualifying condition ('can be queried regardless of ad registration status'), which tells the agent this is not limited to registered keywords. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternatives such as list_keywords or get_stats, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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