search_webkr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a search, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., result format, pagination). For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence with a clear purpose statement and a helpful Korean translation. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary details, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., search results format, error responses) or address behavioral aspects like performance or limitations. With 4 parameters and many sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use, leaving gaps in overall understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (query, display, sort, start). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'sim' and 'date' sort options further or providing usage examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Perform a search on Naver Web Documents' with the Korean translation for clarity. It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'Naver Web Documents,' making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_blog' or 'search_news,' which are also search tools on the same platform.

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 alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'search_blog,' 'search_news,' and 'search_academic,' it's unclear what makes 'search_webkr' unique or when it should be chosen over others. There's no mention of context, exclusions, or specific use cases.

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