scienceon_news_trends

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety; the description adds the scope of content (domestic/international science news collections) but does not disclose additional behaviors such as result sorting, pagination limits, or handling of the include_body flag. It is consistent with annotations, adding some but limited context.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the main action first and supplementary scope second. Every word contributes to understanding, and there is no 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?

With a read-only annotation, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and domain. It could briefly mention how it relates to detail views or alternative trend tools, but for a straightforward search interface, it is complete enough.

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 schema fully describes all four parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond broader content context, so it does not improve upon the schema.

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 it searches science and technology trend articles from KISTI ScienceON, using the specific verb 'searches' and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle patents, papers, reports, etc., by focusing on news/trends.

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 implies usage for searching news/trend articles but does not explicitly compare with related siblings like scienceon_weekly_news or scienceon_tech_trends. There is no exclusion guidance, making it minimally contextual.

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