비즈채널 목록 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only the semantic context that ad groups target these channels — nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and its enumeration front-loaded, followed by the relational context. No filler, though the second sentence's value is modest given the annotations already frame the operation.

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 single-parameter read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the description supplies what is needed to call it correctly; no output schema means return details are not required here. The only gap is the absence of sibling differentiation.

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% and the single customerId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the NAVER_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a clear verb (조회) and resource (비즈채널), and enriches it by enumerating concrete channel types (웹사이트, 전화번호, 네이버 톡, 쇼핑몰). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_ad_extensions or list_customer_links, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence ('광고그룹이 연결하는 대상입니다') implies the context in which these channels matter, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many listing siblings. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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