성과 지표 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds operational context beyond annotations: the ID-type-agnostic behavior and the date-source mutual exclusion with an implicit default, which are non-obvious traits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the ID-typing rule, then the date rule. No filler, though slightly terse for English-reading agents given the Korean-only text.

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?

Covers the two genuinely ambiguous behaviors (polymorphic ids, mutually exclusive date params with default) for an 8-param read tool. Output format is not described, but the tool is read-only and a consumer can rely on the fields parameter; no output schema exists, so a brief return-shape note would have closed the last gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds value by describing ids' polymorphic acceptance and the since/until vs datePreset constraint that the schema's individual field descriptions do not state as a cross-field rule.

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 the exact resources covered (캠페인·광고그룹·키워드·소재), making it distinguishable from single-resource sibling getters like get_campaign or get_keyword.

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?

Explicitly resolves a real ambiguity: only one of since+until or datePreset may be set, and omitting both falls back to NAVER's default period. It also clarifies that ids accepts heterogeneous ID types, removing guesswork about mixing campaign/adgroup/keyword/ad IDs.

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