search_cafearticle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only search operation and gives no information about authentication, rate limits, result formats, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose. It includes an emoji and a Korean translation, and the second sentence partly repeats the first with 'specialized content' and 'specialized discussions,' but it remains efficient overall.

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 identifies the content type and target platform, which helps selection. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits relevant behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what result fields are returned, leaving a noticeable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 Naver Cafe articles' for 'community discussions and specialized content.' This distinguishes it by resource from generic search siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast against alternatives like search_blog or search_kin.

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 when to use it by framing it around community discussions, niche communities, and hobby groups. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling search tools or 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.