get_keyword

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates it is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., error handling, rate limits). With the annotation covering the main trait, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not add value but does not contradict.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and API endpoint. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is simple (single keyword retrieval) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the essential information, but could briefly mention that it returns full keyword details for completeness.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('상세' - detail) and resource ('단일 키워드' - single keyword), and includes the HTTP method and path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_keywords' by implying it returns a single item, but lacks explicit 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_keywords for multiple, get_keyword_performance for metrics). The description simply states what it does without any context on suitability.

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