scienceON_export

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses crucial traits: max_records does not silently truncate but sets meta.truncated=true with a warning, meta.union_upper_bound is described, and out_dir defaults to user home scienceon-output/ due to arbitrary cwd. This is high-value behavioral context not visible in structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses line breaks and a warning block to organize details. The warning about max_records is detailed but earns its place because it prevents user misunderstanding. It is slightly dense but remains scannable.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers important behavioral warnings (truncation, return meta fields, out_dir default) but omits explanations for many parameters and does not fully specify the return structure beyond the path and meta fields. It is helpful but incomplete for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains queries, contains, lang, out_dir, and max_records, but leaves many parameters unexplained: name, field, target, formats (though formats are inferred from file extensions), year_from, year_to, retry_incomplete, and query (singular). This is a significant gap for a 13-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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's purpose: '검색 결과를 대량 수집해 파일로 저장(xlsx/csv/json/sqlite). 저장 경로 반환.' This specifies the verb (collect, save), resource (search results), and output (file formats and path), which distinguishes it from siblings like search, status, detail, and collect_groups.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: queries for multiple terms with union, contains as post-filter, lang for domestic-only, and out_dir behavior. While alternatives are not explicitly named, the description makes it evident this is for bulk export versus the sibling search tool. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context to select it appropriately.

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