search_news

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic search function. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as result format, pagination behavior, sorting defaults, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with no annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool name and purpose. There is no redundant or filler content; it is efficient and to the point.

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 tool with no output schema and a simple search function, the description does not explain return values or how output is structured. It also does not mention how to use pagination parameters (start, display) effectively. This leaves significant contextual gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, including complete descriptions and an enum for sort. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but given the thorough schema, no further detail is necessary.

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 identifies the tool as a Naver News search, using the specific verb '검색' and resource '네이버 뉴스', and explicitly defines the content domain (latest news, current issues, policy changes). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools such as search_blog and search_shop.

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 implies usage context—when you need news-related search results—but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_blog or search_cafearticle, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is based primarily on the tool's name and domain.

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