Search Naver Stock Research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose sort order (newest first), that reports are mostly Korean, that every result carries detailUrl, and that includePdf triggers one extra request per result and is therefore slower. It omits pagination behavior/total counts, rate limits, and any auth expectations, so meaningful gaps remain for an 11-parameter tool.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and where it searches, then moves through output shape, sorting, categories, and category-specific guidance in a compact block. The category list duplicates the schema enum text verbatim, which is the one wasteful segment.

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 11 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description does substantial work: source, language, sort order, URL fields, PDF cost tradeoff, and category usage. It still leaves the result object shape (title, broker, date, truncated summary via summaryChars) and pagination semantics unexplained, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 the baseline is 3; the description largely repeats what the schema already states about query, stocks/scoping and category values. The only genuine additions are that query matches titles and summaries with Korean working best, and the detailUrl/pdfUrl implication of includePdf.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search brokerage research reports) plus the exact source (stock.naver.com/research), and implicitly separates itself from get_research, list_brokers and list_industries by naming those helpers for broker/industry lookup. An agent can tell what this returns without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing rules: category=company with stocks for single stocks, category=industry with industries for sectors, and notes Korean keywords work best. However, it never says when to stop searching and call get_research for a single report, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions for the other categories.

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