get_adgroup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the GET method and resource path, reinforcing a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or any other traits beyond what annotations already imply.

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, front-loaded sentence containing only the essential purpose and endpoint. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-resource getter with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is adequate. It lacks usage alternatives, but the low complexity and rich structured metadata compensate.

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 the parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the path hint in the endpoint.

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 '단일 광고그룹 상세 (GET /adGroups/{id})' clearly states the tool fetches details for a single ad group and includes the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from list_adgroups by emphasizing '단일' (single), but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_adgroups or get_adgroup_performance. It only states what it does, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent without any comparative context.

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