scienceon_paper_details

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the read-only nature, such as return volume or side effects. It does not contradict the annotation, but it also does not enrich it.

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 Korean sentence that directly states the action and target. No unnecessary words, and it earns its place.

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?

For a simple detail-fetch tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description is mostly adequate. It could have explicitly mentioned that it is intended for use with results from scienceon_papers, but the schema's cn reference and sibling list make this inferable. Minor gap only.

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 parameter descriptions fully explain cn and include_body. The main description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it relies completely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves detailed paper information using a unique CN number, which is a specific verb+resource+identifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scienceon_papers (search) and other detail tools (patents, reports) by specifying 'paper details' and the CN identifier.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools. However, the cn parameter description ('CN value from paper search results') implies it is used after a search, providing weak context. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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