search_cafearticle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states that the tool performs a search, without mentioning whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns specific data. 'Search' implies a read operation, but no explicit behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, focused sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbosity. It also includes a Korean translation, which may aid localization. It is efficient but slightly under-specified, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 simple search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. It states the target resource, and the schema covers parameter specifics. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings and does not describe any return behavior, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The baseline is 3 because the schema already handles parameter documentation, and the description adds no additional 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 clearly states the verb 'Perform a search' and the resource 'Naver Cafe Articles', which precisely identifies the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_news or search_blog, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 indirectly implies usage by naming the target resource (Naver Cafe Articles), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct reference to sibling search tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the resource alone.

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