dbpia_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the hard constraint (no query is ever sent), the auth requirement (must be signed in to DBpia to see availability and price), and a surprising output trait (`items` is always empty). That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent cannot infer from schema alone.

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 core constraint is front-loaded and every sentence carries information (constraint, inputs, return shape, next action). Slightly long and line-broken for the amount of content, but no filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter builder tool with an output schema, this covers the essentials: why it exists, what to pass, where results land, and what the user must do next. Minor incompleteness remains around tool-side edge cases (empty suggestions, conflicting inputs), but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps title/author/journal to a single joined search string, and specifies the node_id format ("NODE plus digits") for article pages. The only gap is the unresolved precedence when multiple parameter groups are populated.

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?

"Compose DBpia addresses for the user to open; sends nothing to DBpia" names a concrete verb (compose), a concrete output (links/addresses), and immediately scopes it away from a search. The second sentence reinforces the distinction from the KCI/OAK retrieval siblings: this tool never retrieves records, so an agent cannot confuse it with a query tool.

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?

It tells the agent exactly what inputs to supply ("Give `query`, or any of `title`, `author`, `journal` ..., and/or a DBpia `node_id`") and what to do with the output (open in a signed-in browser, then save via Zotero's translator). The rationale for the constraint (DBpia's terms) makes the boundary clear. What's missing is precedence guidance when both query and bibliographic fields, or both node_id and a query, are supplied.

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