search_image

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, but it discloses nothing about rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, or filtering behavior. The phrase "on Naver" identifies the source but adds no meaningful behavioral context for invoking the tool correctly.

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 extremely short, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It contains no wasted words, but it omits information an agent needs to select and 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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide the contextual detail needed to understand how the tool behaves or how to use its parameters effectively.

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 input schema has five parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. Critical parameters such as sort, start, filter, and display are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Search images") and names the platform (Naver), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_blog, search_news, and search_shop. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the resource is clear enough for an agent to identify the tool's purpose.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_webkr or search_blog, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for image-specific searches. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource.

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