kci_search

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that this is a REST API requiring an API key, and provides specific constraints like date format (YYYYMM) and row limit (max 100). This is useful behavioral context not present in the schema or 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 very concise—three short sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add prerequisites and parameter details. No unnecessary words 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?

It covers the essential context: purpose, auth requirement, alternative tool, and key parameter formats. However, it does not describe the return value or output structure, and lacks explanations for most filter parameters. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on what the search returns would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only explains date_from/date_to and rows. The other seven parameters (doi, author, journal, keyword, abstract) are left unexplained, leaving users to guess their expected formats or semantics.

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 it is a paper search tool (논문 검색) with title as required and optional filters. It also differentiates from the kci_harvest sibling by mentioning the alternative for no-auth users. However, it doesn't distinguish from other sibling tools like kci_detail or kci_references, so not a perfect 5.

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 says to use kci_harvest (OAI no-auth) when an API key is not available, providing a clear alternative. It also states that title is required and mentions optional filters, giving context on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't cover all sibling tools or more nuanced selection criteria.

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