search_local

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields (address, phone, category), but does not mention that this is a read-only search, any rate limits, or pagination behavior (such as start/display constraints). It omits details like default sort behavior or the fact that results may be limited, leaving the agent without critical context for safety and expectations.

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 clear sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the tool's purpose ('네이버 지역 검색') and includes the essential output information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides key return information (address, phone, category) and clearly defines the search scope. Combined with a complete input schema, it gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could be enhanced with pagination or sort behavior details.

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 does not add any additional explanation of parameters beyond what is already in the schema; it merely mentions output fields. Since it adds no extra semantics to the parameters, the baseline score 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 clearly states it performs Naver local search for places like restaurants, shops, and hospitals, explicitly bound to the '지역 검색' (local search) scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_blog, search_news, etc., by specifying the resource type (places) and return fields (address, phone, category).

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?

Usage is implied by the local search description and the mention of place types, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The description does not reference sibling tools or provide decision rules, so it only hints at its niche.

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