kipris_bibliography

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. It states the tool retrieves detailed bibliographic information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage. There is no wasted language, and every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a single-parameter lookup tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values include (e.g., fields in the bibliographic information), error conditions, or other contextual details needed for effective use. The description should provide more context to compensate for the absence of structured data.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions that the parameter 'applicationNumber' is used to fetch detailed bibliographic information for a single patent, but the schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description and example. Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'KIPRIS Plus 서지정보 상세 조회' (KIPRIS Plus bibliographic detail lookup) and specifies it retrieves detailed bibliographic information for a single patent using an application number. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on detailed lookup rather than search or query-building operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'kipris_item_search' which might also retrieve patent details.

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 provides minimal usage guidance: it indicates the tool is for retrieving detailed bibliographic information by application number. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'kipris_search' for broader searches or 'kipris_item_search' for other item types), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

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