search_encyc

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 discloses almost nothing: no result format, no pagination behavior, no rate limits, no note that this is a read-only lookup. Only the implicit 'Naver encyclopedia' scope hints at what comes back.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes nothing, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — brevity here comes at the cost of missing information.

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 3-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain paging semantics and result scope. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot invoke it confidently beyond the required query.

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%, and the description explains none of the three parameters. 'query' is self-evident, but 'start' and 'display' (presumably pagination offset and page size, given their defaults of 1 and 10) are opaque in both schema and description.

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 and resource: 'Search encyclopedia on Naver'. This makes the vertical obvious among siblings like search_blog, search_news, and search_webkr, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 guidance on when to choose this over search_webkr or search_doc, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The vertical is only implied by the tool name, which leaves the agent to infer the selection criteria itself.

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