scienceon_patent_details

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates the read-only nature, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating what it retrieves, and it does not disclose additional traits like response size or data source. Since the annotation covers safety, the bar is lower, and the description adds no significant extra 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, consisting of two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a clear pointer to an alternative tool. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 (2 parameters, output schema present), the description is adequately complete. It clarifies the key use case and provides a crucial alternative reference for citations. It does not explain what '상세정보' includes, but the output schema presumably covers that. A slightly richer description could mention the source or what types of details are returned, but it's sufficient for this complexity.

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%, with both cn and include_body well-documented in the input schema. The description's mention of CN번호 aligns with the cn parameter but adds no meaning beyond the schema. The include_body parameter is not addressed in the description at all, so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 'CN번호로 특허 상세정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves patent detailed information by CN number), specifying the exact resource and identifier. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool scienceon_patent_citations by explicitly stating that citation information is handled separately.

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 clear context: use this tool for patent details by CN number. It explicitly directs users to the alternative tool `scienceon_patent_citations` for cited/citing patents, giving a concrete exclusion. However, it does not mention other related tools like scienceon_patents for searching, though the scope is implied.

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