search_doc

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, yet it adds nothing beyond the name. It does not mention read-only semantics, result ordering, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what a result contains.

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 single five-word sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but here the brevity is under-specification rather than economy. There is no structural signal such as a when-to-use clause or a note on parameter meaning.

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, the description leaves an agent unable to determine return shape or pagination semantics. For a simple search tool it could still be invoked with just a query, which keeps it above a 1, but the "start"/"display" controls remain opaque.

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% across three parameters, and the description supplies no compensating meaning. Nothing explains what "start" (offset? page?) or "display" (result count? page size?) control, and the required "query" syntax is undefined.

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+resource ("Search documents") and names the provider (Naver), so the basic action is clear. However, with 13 sibling search_* tools, it does not differentiate what a "document" search covers versus search_encyc, search_kin, or search_webkr, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over its 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a given query type. The agent is left to infer routing from the names alone.

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