네이버 길찾기 MCP 서버

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it searches for places but doesn't describe what information is returned, whether results are paginated, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably returns structured data.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a basic search tool.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of place information is returned (names, addresses, coordinates, ratings, etc.), how results are structured, or any limitations. Users would need to guess about the output format and capabilities.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (query and display). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the action ('검색합니다' - searches) and resource ('네이버 지도에서 장소' - places on Naver Maps). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it searches for 'places' rather than providing directions or geocoding. However, it doesn't specify what kind of place information is returned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (naver_directions, naver_geocode, naver_reverse_geocode). There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases for place search versus other mapping functions.

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