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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned fields (placeId, business name, address), but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether results are a list or how ambiguous matches are handled. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then immediately explains the purpose and expected output. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 search tool, the description covers what it does, why it is used, and the fields returned. Since there is no output schema, this is mostly sufficient, though it could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether the tool returns a single result or a list of candidates to choose from.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single keyword parameter, including an example. The description reinforces that the keyword should be a business name or search term and ties it to the use case of identifying the user's store, but it does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 specific action and resource: searching Naver Places by business name or keyword, with a clear intended outcome of identifying the user's store and retrieving placeId, store name, and address. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are checkout, product, and auth operations.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: when the task is to locate the user's store and obtain place identifiers from Naver Places. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so the context is sufficient.

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