KIPRIS Plus MCP Server

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. It explains the scope of the search (full text across multiple fields) and mentions the sibling alternative, but doesn't describe what the tool returns, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral information.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second provides clear usage guidance. There's zero wasted text or 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 has 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks information about what the tool returns. For a search tool with no output schema, the description should ideally mention the type of results returned (e.g., patent documents, metadata). The current description is complete for basic usage but has gaps in behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '자유 키워드' (free keywords) which aligns with the query parameter, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('키워드 검색' - keyword search) and resource ('특허/실용신안 전문' - patent/utility model full text), distinguishing it from the sibling tool kipris_item_search for field-specific searches. It explicitly mentions searching across multiple text fields (invention name, summary, claims).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('자유 키워드로' - with free keywords) versus when to use the alternative ('특정 필드로 좁혀 검색하려면 kipris_item_search를 사용하세요' - use kipris_item_search for narrowing by specific fields). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool.

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