scienceon_news_trend_details

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read‑only nature is already disclosed. The description adds no further behavioral context such as response format or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotation. No additional hidden behaviors are revealed, keeping the score at a baseline 3.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word conveys necessary meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the clear parameter definitions, the description is sufficient for invocation. The only slight gap is not explicitly linking to the sibling search tool, but the name and schema make the relationship apparent.

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% for both parameters (cn and include_body), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description only repeats the CN concept and adds no extra parameter semantics, thus the baseline 3 applies.

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 function: 'CN번호로 과학기술 동향 기사 상세정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves detailed info of science/technology trend articles by CN number). The verb '조회' and the resource '상세정보' distinguish it from sibling list tools like 'scienceon_news_trends', making the purpose 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 indicates usage by CN number, implying it is for looking up details after a search. The schema further clarifies that the CN comes from trend search results, but the description itself does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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