kci_get_citation_detail

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It clearly states this is a read-only retrieval operation (상세 조회) and lists the types of data returned. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but the absence is acceptable for a simple read tool. The disclosure of return content is sufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists specific data categories. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or off-topic content. It is highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the input (control number) and enumerates the types of output (registration, institution, change history, citation history). Given the simple schema (1 parameter, no output schema), this is largely complete. Lacking only is mention of output format or potential errors, which are minor omissions.

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 a description for the only parameter (id: control number). The tool description merely restates 'journal control number' without adding new semantics, format constraints, or examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb (상세 조회, retrieve detailed information), the resource (저널/학술지, journal), and the method (by 제어번호, control number). It lists specific data types (registration info, citation history) that clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like kci_get_article_detail or kci_get_journal_citations.

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 when the user has a journal control number and needs detailed citation and registration data. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings (e.g., ‘for article-level data, use kci_get_article_detail’). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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