scienceon_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses file formats, default out_dir behavior, per-query union semantics, post-filtering, lang constraint, and the MCP arbitrary-cwd caveat. It does not mention overwrite behavior, max_records enforcement, or error handling.

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 compact, front-loaded, and well-structured with code-style examples for parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

This is a complex 12-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the main workflow and important defaults, but omits several parameters and edge cases, so it is not complete enough for fully confident invocation without further inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to queries, contains, lang, out_dir, and formats, but leaves many parameters (query, field, target, name, year_from, year_to, max_records) unexplained, requiring the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: bulk-collect search results and save them to files in formats (xlsx/csv/json/sqlite), and return the save path. This distinguishes it from siblings like search, status, and detail.

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 for bulk export rather than single-item lookups, and adds context for multi-query union, contains post-filtering, lang restriction, and default output directory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear.

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