search_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing beyond intent: no indication of what a result contains (image URLs, thumbnails, dimensions, source links), no pagination or quota behavior despite the Naver API's known daily limits, and no statement of whether the Korean scope is a hard filter or a ranking bias.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, which is good, but the description runs four sentences that partly restate each other, and the parenthetical Korean translation duplicates the opening "Korean context" claim without adding information.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what comes back, how paging behaves across start/display, or what limits apply. The one genuinely useful disclosure — that this is Korean-context search — is left ambiguous as to whether it constrains or merely biases results.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented (query, sort, start, display) including defaults. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline 3 is appropriate — the schema does all the work.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource ("Search for images") and adds scope the name alone doesn't carry: Korean-market relevance and the content types returned (infographics, charts, photos). Its resource is clearly distinguishable from the web/news/blog siblings, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

"Great for visual research and content discovery" implies a use case but gives no when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no explicit routing rule versus search_webkr or search_news, which an agent could plausibly choose for the same query.

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