get_adgroup_performance

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

The description adds that if adGroupId is not specified, ad groups are automatically enumerated, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, this is presented in a confusing, self-contradictory way ('adGroupId 필수' followed by '미지정 시...'), diminishing its clarity. No other behavioral details are disclosed.

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 one sentence containing the core purpose and endpoint, which is appropriately concise. It is front-loaded with the tool's function. However, the contradictory phrasing reduces its impact, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description is very sparse. It does not clarify how parameters interact (like adgroup_ids vs campaign_id), nor does it resolve the adGroupId ambiguity. While the schema covers parameter details, the description fails to provide a coherent overview, leaving the agent with a misleading 'required' signal.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description, however, uses 'adGroupId' which is not a parameter name (the schema has 'adgroup_ids' as optional), and says it is required while the schema marks it optional. This introduces confusion and adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, arguably making it worse.

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 '광고그룹별 성과 리포트' (ad group performance report) with the endpoint GET /adGroups/report, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling performance tools (e.g., account/campaign/creative performance) by explicitly targeting ad groups.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone. The only behavioral note is about adGroupId enumeration, which is not a usage guideline.

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