search_kin

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. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or result format. It offers only the bare minimum implied by the verb.

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 and is front-loaded, so it is concise. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 four parameters, one required, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. It does not explain required inputs, sorting options, pagination via start/display, or what the search returns.

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 says nothing about the four parameters (query, sort, start, display). The schema itself provides only titles and defaults, so the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 Q&A on Naver.' This clearly separates it from sibling search tools like search_blog, search_news, and search_image by naming the Q&A domain. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 siblings such as search_webkr or search_encyc, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies basic search usage through the verb 'Search.'

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