scienceon_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return payload looks like, or any edge cases (e.g., invalid control number). The word '조회' suggests a query, but the behavioral details are absent.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and wastes no words.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits essential context: no explanation of the 'target' parameter, no indication of what fields are returned, and no mention of whether the response format matches other ScienceON tools. This makes it less complete for an agent trying to use it correctly.

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 description explains the role of 'control_no' (the identifier for lookup) but provides no insight into the 'target' parameter, which is left unexplained. Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates only minimally for the parameters.

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 states a specific action ('조회' meaning 'query') on a specific resource ('상세 서지·초록' meaning 'detailed bibliographic/abstract') keyed by control number. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scienceon_search (searching) and scienceon_export (exporting).

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?

Usage is implied: it is for looking up details when a control number is available. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over scienceon_search or scienceon_status, nor any exclusions such as 'not for broad queries.'

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