scienceon_report_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the basic function, such as response nature or impact of include_body, which is already covered by the schema. With annotations handling the safety profile, this meets a minimum standard.

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, concise sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or repetition. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only detail retriever with full parameter schema coverage and an output schema present. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it, though explicit mention of the prerequisite report search would enhance completeness.

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 fully described. The description only mentions CN번호 and adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb '조회' (query/retrieve) and identifies the resource 'R&D 보고서 상세정보' (R&D report detailed info) keyed by CN number. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scienceon_reports, which likely performs list searches.

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 states the tool operates by 'CN번호' (CN number), and the schema for cn adds that it comes from report search results, implying usage after scienceon_reports. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, providing clear context without exclusions.

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