search_local

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that coverage is restricted to Korean establishments (Naver local search), which is real context, but it says nothing about result caps, pagination behavior, rate limits, or that results may be Korean-language only.

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, front-loaded sentences plus a parenthetical Korean alias; no filler. Minor redundancy between 'in Korea' and 'Korean establishments' keeps it from a 5.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns in general terms (location info, reviews, contact details, hours) but omits the tight result limits and the fact that pagination is effectively unavailable, which an agent needs to plan queries.

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%, and the Korean-language schema docs already explain query, sort, start, and display including their maximums. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Search for local businesses, restaurants, and places') and scopes it geographically to Korea, which is enough to separate it from search_webkr, search_news, or search_blog without opening a schema. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for place/business lookups rather than documents, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative tool for, say, general web results. No prerequisites or query-format advice are offered either.

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