scienceon_reports

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation but adds no behavioral context beyond it, such as pagination behavior or response format. It simply restates the search intent without disclosing additional traits.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function without extraneous words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 comprehensive input schema, an output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides sufficient context for a simple search operation. However, it lacks a note about the scope of R&D reports or how results are structured, though the output schema presumably covers the latter.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not mention any parameters at all, hence baseline 3.

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 the specific verb '검색합니다' (search) and identifies the resource as 'R&D 보고서' (R&D reports) from KISTI ScienceON, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like scienceon_papers or scienceon_patents.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling search tools; it only states the search action without mentioning alternatives or exclusions.

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