korea_sources_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating exactly what it checks (KCI REST key, two keyless OAI endpoints) and what it deliberately does not cover (ScienceON, RISS, DBpia) with reasons implied. It could add a note about being read-only, but the zero-parameter status-report nature makes side effects unlikely.

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 two tight paragraphs: the first states the core purpose with a time qualifier ('right now'), and the second names the exact endpoints checked and the notable exclusions. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what is checked, how authentication is handled (REST key vs keyless endpoints), what is not covered, and the fact that the report is a current runtime view. Nothing needed for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Report which Korean sources are configured and reachable right now.' It then names the concrete checks involved (KCI REST key, two keyless OAI endpoints) and explicitly lists what is not covered, making the tool's scope unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling kci_* and oak_* tools, which are searching and harvesting tools.

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 makes the intended use case clear: checking current configuration and reachability of Korean sources. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but it frames itself as a status/diagnostic tool, implying it should be used before or alongside harvest/search operations rather than as a content-fetching tool. It does not include explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the scope is clear enough.

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