search_book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool searches books on Naver. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior implied by start/display, or what kind of results are returned.

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 a single short phrase, so it contains no wasted text, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not front-load the additional information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is far from complete. It identifies the function and target service but omits parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and result expectations.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across four parameters, and the description adds no meaning for query, sort, start, or display. An agent must infer the purpose and accepted values of every parameter from their names alone.

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 books") and names the target service (Naver), so the core operation is immediately understandable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifying books, though it does not explicitly name or compare against alternatives.

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?

It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as search_blog, search_news, or search_encyc beyond the obvious resource name. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection instructions.

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