kci_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds useful context: the tool is RESTful, requires an authentication key, and provides fields absent from other endpoints. However, it does not detail rate limits, response size, or error handling. The description adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 brief: two sentences plus a bolded summary. It front-loads the REST nature and authentication requirement, then explains unique value and use case. Every sentence adds value, though the first sentence could be more explicit about the input parameter.

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?

Given a simple input schema (1 required string param) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, unique fields, and relation to other endpoints. It does not explain the output format or other potential usage nuances, but the tool appears simple and the description is largely complete for its complexity.

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?

There is only one required parameter (arti_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not directly explain the parameter, but the tool name and context ('Control Number(ART…)') imply the parameter is a Control Number. Since the schema is minimal and the description adds some implicit meaning, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves detailed paper information by Control Number (ART…). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly listing unique fields (author keywords, ISSN, indexing status, FWCI, author affiliations, references) not available in other tools like articleSearch. This is a specific verb+resource combination with explicit differentiation.

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 explains when to use this tool: for fields missing from articleSearch (e.g., keywords). It also mentions the prerequisite of an authentication key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives, only contrasting with articleSearch which is not listed among siblings.

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