kci_search_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. Also missing are details on pagination, rate limits, or any constraints beyond the input schema. The description only states what the tool does, not its behavioral characteristics.

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, well-formed sentence that covers the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly improved by adding structure (e.g., separating search criteria from output description) without increasing length significantly.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how results correspond to input parameters. A more complete description would provide an overview of the response structure and any limitations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that parameters are used to search for papers whose references are retrieved, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema descriptions already specify (e.g., format constraints, default values). Thus, it meets the baseline without significant added value.

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's action ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and resource ('참고문헌 목록' - reference list) with specific search criteria (title, author, institution, year). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like kci_search_articles (which searches articles) and kci_get_citation_detail (which gets citation details).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies its use for retrieving references, there is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools. This lack of contextual guidance reduces its helpfulness for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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