scienceon_organizations

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral constraint that Korean names are recommended for search, which is useful but does not disclose other traits such as pagination limits or result format beyond what annotations and schema already cover.

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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives a clear, actionable tip. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded structure immediately clarifies what the tool does.

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 read-only annotation, the explicit output schema, and the schema descriptions for parameters, this description is sufficiently complete for a search tool. It adds contextual value with the Korean-name tip and example, but it does not elaborate on result handling or edge cases, though the output schema compensates.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (query, page, max_results). The description reinforces the query parameter with an example ('한국과학기술정보연구원') but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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: searching for research institutions in KISTI ScienceON. The verb '검색합니다' (search) and resource '연구기관' (research institutions) are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on papers, patents, or other entities.

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 a practical usage tip (search using Korean institution names) with an example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scienceon_organization_details or other search tools. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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