scienceon_patents

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

The description aligns with the `readOnlyHint: true` annotation, indicating a safe read operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the search action itself, such as pagination behavior or result scope, but given the annotation coverage, this minimal addition is acceptable.

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 sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a useful pointer to a sibling tool. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 rich schema (4 parameters with full descriptions), annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the core purpose and the main alternative (citations). It could mention result details or whether it returns bibliographic info, but the output schema likely handles that, so no major gap.

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 all parameters (query, page, max_results, include_body) already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 searches patents on KISTI ScienceON, using the specific verb '검색' (search) and resource '특허' (patents). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `scienceon_patent_citations` by noting that citation data is handled separately, preventing confusion.

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 explicitly tells users to use `scienceon_patent_citations` for cited/citing patents, providing a clear alternative and exclusion. This helps the agent decide when not to use this tool without additional inference.

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