kakao_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the search function and adds the scope 'domestic content,' but it does not mention whether results are read-only, any pagination or rate limits, or what the output contains. This falls short of the transparency burden given no annotation support.

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 concise sentences efficiently state the tool's function and a primary use case with no redundant phrasing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent needs more context about return behavior, pagination, and limitations. The description provides only the function and a use case, leaving significant gaps for a 4-parameter 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%, so all parameters (type, query, size, sort) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond enumerating the type values, which are already in the enum. 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a Daum search across multiple content types (web, blog, cafe, image, video, book). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kakao_search_place by focusing on general content search rather than places, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 phrase 'useful for domestic content and SEO research' gives an intended use case, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools such as kakao_search_place. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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