임의 엔드포인트 GET 호출

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 and openness profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the fallback semantics and a documentation link, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or how unwrapped paths behave on error. Value beyond annotations is real but modest.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, routing rule, concrete example path, and spec reference. Front-loaded with the core action and free of filler, though the docs URL could arguably be folded into the schema.

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 an open-world generic GET escape hatch with no output schema, the description supplies the routing rule, a concrete example endpoint, and where to find the full spec. What is missing is any note on error/response shape for arbitrary paths, but annotations and the spec link carry most of the load.

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 each parameter (path, query, customerId) is already documented in the schema, including the path example and CUSTOMER_ID fallback. The description only echoes the /ncc/labels style path example, adding no new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('전용 툴이 없는 네이버 검색광고 API 엔드포인트를 직접 GET 호출합니다') and immediately positions itself against the sibling set by declaring itself the fallback for unwrapped paths. An agent can distinguish this from list_campaigns / get_stats without opening any 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?

Explicitly gives both the when ('/ncc/labels 처럼 아직 감싸지 않은 경로용') and the when-not with named alternatives ('전용 툴(list_campaigns, get_stats 등)이 있으면 그쪽을 쓰세요'). Routing between this tool and its siblings is fully specified.

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