scienceon_scent_details

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

Annotations already cover the read-only nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds that it returns both details and body text, but this is also reflected in the include_body parameter. No additional behavioral context about errors, pagination, or response size is provided, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and target. It contains no redundant words and earns its place by stating exactly what the tool does and how.

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 simplicity of the tool, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is complete enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke it. It includes the key identifier (CN) and differentiates the tool from search functionalities.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both 'cn' and 'include_body'. The description merely restates the role of CN, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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' (retrieve) with a clear resource '과학향기 칼럼 상세정보 및 본문' (Science Scent column details and body) and a unique identifier 'CN번호'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling search tools like scienceon_scents by indicating it is a detail lookup based on a known CN.

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 implies usage after obtaining a CN number from a search result ('CN번호로') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. There is no explicit reference to sibling tools like scienceon_scents or search-first workflow.

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