scienceon_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: queries are searched individually and combined via CN union, wildcards are supported, contains acts as a case-insensitive post-filter, rows has a max of 100, and lang imposes a language restriction. These details go beyond the bare schema and help predict tool behavior.

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 and information-dense, covering 9 parameters in a structured, line-broken list. There is no redundant text; each sentence adds value and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Input parameters are thoroughly explained, but the description omits any mention of the return format or typical response structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left without information about what the tool returns, which is a notable gap for a search tool. No mention of pagination, sorting, or errors either.

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 has zero descriptions, but this description explains every parameter with allowed values and constraints (target codes, field codes, year range, row limits, contains behavior, language filter). It adds essential meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 'ScienceOn 문헌 검색' (ScienceOn literature search), providing a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scienceon_detail or scienceon_export, the action 'search' is distinct and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description explains parameter usage (e.g., query vs queries) but does not address tool selection criteria or contexts where alternatives would be more appropriate.

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