list_g2b_services

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It says it performs an inquiry ('조회합니다') but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or authentication requirements. It lacks details on idempotency or potential caching, but is not misleading.

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, well-structured paragraph with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and next steps.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 boolean param, no output schema, 16 siblings), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's role as a discovery starting point and references sibling tools. Could optionally mention output format or pagination, but current content suffices.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the single parameter 'include_operations'. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool lists 14 services and their operation overviews provided by the G2B MCP. It distinguishes itself as the starting point to decide which service to call, and references sibling tools like get_<module>_data and get_g2b_operation_info.

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?

Explicitly states it is the starting point to decide which service/operation to invoke. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use, it implies that after identifying the service, users should call the appropriate get_<module>_data tool or get_g2b_operation_info for details.

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