kci_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the API key requirement and the exact returned content (details, abstract, keywords, author), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the REST nature and immediately specifies the key identifier and output, making it 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one parameter, the description covers the input format, output scope, and auth requirement. It does not discuss error scenarios, but this is not critical for a basic retrieval tool.

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 schema provides no description for arti_id, but the description explains it as 'Control Number(ART…)', adding critical semantic meaning. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 uses specific verb '조회' (retrieve) with resource '논문 상세·초록·키워드·저자' and specifies the method 'Control Number(ART…)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kci_search, which handles search queries.

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 explicitly states the input type (Control Number ART...) and the API key requirement, implying this tool should be used when a specific control number is already known. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling context and the identifier-based lookup make usage clear.

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