search_kin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Perform a search' without describing the output format, result structure, pagination behavior, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal and leaves the agent without meaningful transparency beyond the obvious action.

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 sentence and thus highly concise. However, the Korean parenthetical is redundant with the English text and adds no new information, slightly reducing efficiency. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple search tool with full parameter schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the return values or result format, which is notable because no output schema exists. It also lacks any usage context beyond the basic action. Overall, it is a minimally viable description with clear 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 (query, sort, start, display) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Perform a search on Naver KnowledgeiN.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_news or search_blog, which target different Naver services. The Korean parenthetical reinforces the target service without adding ambiguity.

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 clearly implies this tool is for searching Naver KnowledgeiN specifically, which is evident from the resource name. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, though the distinct target resource makes such exclusions less critical.

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