네이버 쇼핑 상품 검색

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying the exact output format (markdown table with listed fields) and official API nature, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no filler. Every word adds value, explaining what it does, what it returns, and when to use it.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format and usage context well. It does not discuss pagination or filter combination, but the schema covers parameter details, and the description is sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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%, with all parameters (query, sort, limit, start, exclude, maxPrice, minPrice, naverPayOnly) having descriptive Korean labels in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides it, so the baseline score 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?

Specific verb '검색합니다' (search) identifies the action, and the description lists return fields (상품명·최저가·쇼핑몰·카테고리·링크) as a markdown table. It clearly differs from siblings like compare_products and shopping_trends by focusing on general search and initial exploration.

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 '가격 비교와 초기 탐색 단계에서 사용하세요' (use for price comparison and initial exploration), giving clear context for when to use. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but 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.