search_kin

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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (implied by 'display' and 'start' parameters but not explained), error conditions, or what format/search scope the results will have. The description only states what the tool does at a high level.

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 appropriately concise with two parallel statements (English and Korean) that directly state the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, though the dual-language approach might be slightly redundant for some users.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what KnowledgeiN is (a Q&A platform), what kind of content it searches, what the results look like, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of search tools and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain typical query formats, what 'sim' vs 'date' sorting means in practice, or provide examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 resource ('on Naver KnowledgeiN'), with a Korean translation adding clarity for that audience. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling search tools (e.g., search_blog, search_news, search_academic) which all perform searches on different Naver platforms.

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 specific search tool versus the 15+ sibling search tools listed. There's no mention of what makes KnowledgeiN unique (Q&A platform vs. blog/news searches) or when an agent should choose this over alternatives like search_webkr or search_academic.

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