search_kin

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, but it only restates the search purpose. It does not disclose result format, pagination behavior, read-only status, or any operational constraints beyond what the schema already implies.

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 tool’s purpose, with the Korean parenthetical serving as a localized duplicate. It is efficient, though the bilingual repetition slightly reduces conciseness.

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 search tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what the tool searches but leaves usage boundaries and return behavior implicit.

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 parameter meanings are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, making the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: searching Naver KnowledgeiN for Q&A and community-driven answers. It distinguishes the content type from general web/news/blog searches, though it does not explicitly compare itself to siblings.

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 listing use cases such as finding solutions, expert advice, and community insights. It gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives, so the agent must infer that this is for Q&A/community content.

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