get_ad_account

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the read-only nature, so the description's addition of the HTTP method (GET) is consistent but not extra behavioral insight. The description does not disclose any additional traits such as session fallback behavior or potential errors, but given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence in Korean, front-loading the resource and endpoint. No extraneous words or repetition; it earns every character it uses.

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 a simple read-only get tool with an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description adequately states the core purpose. It does not explain session fallback or ID resolution, but those are covered in the schema. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed in the description.

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% for both parameters (ad_account_id and business_token), so the schema fully explains their meaning and defaults. The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 states '광고계정 상세' (ad account details) and explicitly provides the GET /adAccounts/{adAccountId} endpoint, making it clear this tool retrieves a single ad account's details. It is distinct from list_ad_accounts (which lists accounts) and other sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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. It does not mention list_ad_accounts or any prerequisites (e.g., session required, when to specify ad_account_id vs rely on use_account). The description is purely declarative without usage context.

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