kci_references

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, aligning with the description's data retrieval purpose. The description adds key behavioral details not in annotations: API has a 100-record limit per request, no pagination support, and the workaround of flipping sort_dir. It also clarifies that article_id in results is the citing article. No contradictions with 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 relatively concise but includes a mix of Korean and English, potentially adding cognitive load. Key information is front-loaded (purpose, auth requirement). The workaround explanation is detailed but necessary; one sentence could be slightly trimmed.

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 the moderate complexity (7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description covers core functionality, edge cases (100-record limit), and provides workarounds. It explains the return field meaning (article_id is citing article) and filter options, sufficient for an agent to use correctly without output schema.

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 by explaining institution filters, sort_by and sort_dir options, and the significance of the page parameter absence. However, it does not fully explain all parameters (e.g., author, pub_year, rows) leaving some burden on the agent to infer from names.

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 fetches raw reference records matching a title search term, specifying the resource (reference raw data), action (collect), and scope (title-matched articles). It distinguishes from siblings like kci_search (which likely searches articles directly) by focusing on references of matched articles.

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 provides explicit context on when to use this tool, including authentication requirements and filter usage. It also details workarounds for API limits when total records exceed 100. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or explicitly compare against sibling tools for reference-related tasks.

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