scienceon_researchers

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

The read-only annotation already signals a safe operation, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or result limitations. It does not disclose anything beyond the literal search action, leaving the agent without deeper expectations.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous content. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool, and every word serves a purpose.

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 existence of an output schema and complete parameter schema makes the tool minimally invocable, but the description lacks context about the search scope or relationship to sibling detail tools. It is adequate but leaves gaps in the overall picture.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for query, page, and max_results. The description does not add value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 action (검색합니다, 'searches') and resource (연구자, 'researchers') within the KISTI ScienceON context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on papers, patents, reports, and details, as it explicitly targets researcher search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scienceon_researcher_details. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no decision support beyond the basic action.

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