광고그룹 목록 조회

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the conceptual role of an adgroup and the scoping effect of omitting campaignId. It omits pagination/return-size behavior for a list tool.

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 short sentences, no waste, with the core action front-loaded. The middle domain-definition sentence earns its place by clarifying the entity.

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?

Adequate for a read-only list tool: annotations cover safety, schema covers all three params with descriptions, and the description covers scoping. Missing only pagination/result-limit guidance, which matters for an unbounded list operation.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the campaignId-omitted default (account-wide) scoping rule. adgroupIds and customerId semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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+resource (조회/광고그룹 목록) and even defines what an adgroup is, so the agent understands the entity. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_adgroup or list_campaigns, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 one conditional mode: omitting campaignId returns all adgroups in the account, and campaignId's schema text points to list_campaigns first. However it never says when to use this vs get_adgroup for a single adgroup, nor any prerequisite chain, leaving alternatives implied.

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