get_monthly_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieves' (조회), which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose what the response looks like, whether the month parameter is required or optional, what happens if no data exists for the month, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 short sentence in Korean, which is concise and front-loaded. It earns its place by stating the core operation, though it could add more value 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one optional parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the return value looks like, whether the month is truly optional, or how this differs from the many sibling trend/keyword tools. The description is minimally viable but leaves important gaps.

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% – the single 'month' parameter is documented in the schema with format 'YYYY-MM'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The description doesn't clarify whether the month is required (it's not marked required) or what the default behavior is if omitted.

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 and resource ('이달의 키워드를 조회합니다' = 'retrieves this month's keywords'), so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like get_hot_trend, get_usage_trend, or get_book_keywords, which could overlap in purpose. The name itself is fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds no 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred. With 26 sibling tools, including several trend/keyword-related ones, the lack of usage context is a clear gap.

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