search_encyc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the corpus is curated and authoritative, but it says nothing about result volume limits, pagination behavior, language coverage, or what a result item contains, which matters for an unannotated search tool.

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?

Two short sentences lead with the core action and then the use cases, with no filler. The Korean restatement is largely redundant for an English-reading agent but is short and does not obscure the front-loaded purpose.

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 simple, fully documented four-parameter search tool, the description covers purpose and selection well. With no output schema and no annotations, though, it omits what results look like and any cap on display or start values, leaving the agent to guess at the response shape.

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%: query, start, display, and sort are all defined in the schema, including the sim/date enum meanings. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search Naver Encyclopedia") and scopes the content type (authoritative knowledge and definitions). This clearly separates it from the other siblings, which all search different sources (webkr, news, blog, kin, image, local).

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?

"Best for academic research, getting reliable information, and understanding Korean concepts and terminology" gives concrete criteria for choosing this tool. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, such as routing definitional or Q&A queries to search_kin or general queries to search_webkr.

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