search_kin

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. It only says 'searches' and gives no information about output format, pagination behavior beyond what schema parameters imply, or any access/auth requirements. The lack of any behavioral context makes this a minimal disclosure.

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 immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise with no filler words, and the Korean phrasing is natural and front-loaded with the service name.

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 a well-documented schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain return value structure or pagination details beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, and there is no output schema to compensate. The description is complete enough for basic invocation but lacks richer context expected for a search tool with many siblings.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly described (query as '검색어', sort with enum values, start position, display count). The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 searches Naver Knowledge iN (지식iN) for Q&A-style professional answers and life information, using a specific verb 'searches' and a distinct resource that differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_blog or search_news.

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?

While the description implies usage for finding Q&A content on Naver Knowledge iN, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for a basic search scenario but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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