search_shop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions key return fields (lprice, hprice, mallName), which gives useful output context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a safe read-only operation, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. For a search API, these omissions are notable but not fatal.

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 purpose and includes the key return fields. Every part contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally sized for a straightforward search tool.

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?

The description, combined with the fully documented schema, covers the essential aspects: purpose, use cases, and return fields. Since there is no output schema, mentioning lprice, hprice, and mallName helps fill that gap. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or API-specific constraints beyond what the schema provides, which is a minor gap.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema handles parameter documentation fully, the baseline score of 3 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 explicitly states '네이버 쇼핑 검색' (Naver Shopping search) and lists concrete use cases: product info, price comparison, market price. This clearly differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_blog or search_news. The verb '검색' plus the specific resource '쇼핑' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('상품 정보, 가격 비교, 시세 파악에 사용합니다') and implies its niche among the sibling search tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would merit a 5.

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