get_book_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the read-only nature implied by the name ('get'). It does not disclose what the returned list contains, whether additionalYN changes the response, or any auth/error behavior.

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 Korean sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it offers no structural aids like usage context or examples.

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 two-parameter lookup, the schema and description together are minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and no behavior/usage context, so an agent cannot anticipate the response shape or know that additionalYN is the only option affecting results.

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 schema already documents isbn13 and additionalYN meaning and format. The description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a clear verb ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and resource ('도서 키워드 목록' / book keyword list), so an agent can tell it is a lookup tool. However, it does not say that the keywords are for a specific ISBN or contrast it with siblings like get_monthly_keywords, so it 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_monthly_keywords, search_books, or get_book_detail. The description gives no context for selecting it, so the agent must infer from the name and schema.

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