scienceon_tech_trends

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is safe to invoke. The description adds that it returns definitions and related content, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination behavior or rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but no extra value beyond what annotations and schema already provide.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus an example, and front-loads the primary verb and resource. There is minor redundancy between the first and second sentences, but overall it is efficiently written without wasted words.

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 high schema parameter coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for a search tool. It clarifies the tool's focus on technology trends and examples, though it could be slightly more explicit about the result format, which the output schema likely covers.

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 all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by mentioning definitions and related content, which aligns with the include_body parameter, but it does not materially improve parameter understanding 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 clearly states the tool searches technology trend topics in KISTI ScienceON, using specific verbs ('검색합니다') and resource ('기술트렌드 토픽'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on technology keywords/topics and trend analysis, with concrete examples like '디지털 트윈' and '메타버스'.

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 context for technology trend searches and provides examples, but it does not give explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference alternative sibling tools. The context is clear enough for basic use, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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