search_webkr

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 says the tool searches Korean web content, which implies a read-only operation, but it never states that explicitly or describes result limits, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the next two sentences restate the same idea with slightly different phrasing: 'Comprehensive search across Korean websites', 'Find articles, information, and documents from various Korean sources'. The parenthetical Korean text is supplementary rather than redundant, but the English portion contains avoidable repetition.

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 tool has four parameters, one required, with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description explains the domain of the search but does not describe what a result contains or how pagination behaves, which matters because there is no output schema to rely on. It is minimally sufficient but not fully rounded.

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 schema documents query, sort, start, and display with their defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the structured schema does all the semantic 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 description gives a clear verb and resource: search Korean web documents and general content across Korean websites. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling verticals (news, blog, image, local) by framing itself as a general web search, though it never names those alternatives. An agent can understand what it does without opening the schema.

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 by the phrase 'general content' and 'various Korean sources', which suggests this should be used for broad Korean web searches rather than specialized verticals. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as search_news or search_blog. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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