search_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to do so. It says nothing about result ordering, default page size, pagination limits, maximum display/start values, or whether results are deduplicated — all material for a search tool with four parameters.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate in form. It is under-specified rather than bloated, so it loses points only for not earning its place as a complete definition.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description is the only source of information, yet it supplies none of it. For a search tool with pagination and sort parameters, an agent lacks enough to invoke it correctly.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: query, sort, start, and display are never mentioned or explained. An agent would have to guess at valid sort values (schema shows no enum) and pagination 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search news articles'), and the Naver platform scoping is explicit. The resource (news) naturally distinguishes it from siblings like search_blog and search_book, though the description never names them explicitly.

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 indication of when to pick this over alternatives (e.g., when to prefer search_webkr or search_blog for the same query), and no prerequisites or constraints stated. Usage is only inferrable from the resource name.

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