search_blog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the name. It doesn't mention Naver API authentication requirements, result/pagination limits (e.g., start/display bounds), rate limits, or what a result record contains. For a low-risk read tool the bar is lower, but this adds essentially zero behavioral context.

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 and waste-free, but at five words it is under-specified rather than concise for a tool with four parameters. There is room to add essential detail without bloat.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, an agent cannot tell how to page results, what sort options exist, or what the response looks like. The description is far too thin for the complexity of a four-parameter search endpoint.

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 0% for four parameters (query, sort, start, display), and the description gives no parameter information at all. Nothing explains what sort values mean, what units start/display use, or their valid ranges, so an agent must guess.

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 specific verb ("Search") and resource ("blog posts on Naver"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_news, search_book, or search_cafe_article. It doesn't explain what distinguishes blog results from cafe articles when both could match a query, but the resource name is clear enough for selection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the other search_* siblings that overlap (e.g., search_cafe_article, search_webkr). The agent must infer that this is the right tool purely from the resource noun.

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