scienceon_scents

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read-only operation. The description adds the key behavioral constraint that the API only supports searching by year, and also states the date range and subject scope. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the tool's limitations.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state the action, give background scope, and note the key limitation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant or vague wording.

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 presence of an output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints and scope. The year-only search limitation is critical for correct invocation, and the tool's read-only nature is already annotated. The description is complete for an agent to select and call this tool appropriately.

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 four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description's note about year-only search reinforces the 'year' parameter's importance, but it doesn't add significant new information beyond the schema.

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 '검색' (search) and identifies the resource as '과학향기 칼럼' (Science Scent columns), clearly distinguishing it from sibling detail tools like scienceon_scent_details. It also states the coverage (2003 to present, all science/tech fields), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: this tool searches Science Scent columns and is only searchable by publication year ('발행연도(year)로만 검색 가능'). This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as 'use scienceon_scent_details for detailed column content.'

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