scienceON_search

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

Despite having readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds extensive behavioral context: it explains the 'CN 합집합' (CN union) logic for multiple queries, the post-processing filter (contains, case-insensitive), wildcard support, and importantly the semantics of total as an upper bound and truncated=true with a warning. It even warns against misinterpreting truncated results as a complete corpus, which goes well beyond the 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 well-structured with clear line breaks and semantically grouped parameters. Each sentence adds value, including the critical truncation warning. Despite being dense, it remains concise and easy to parse, covering complex behavior without redundant text.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and complex union/filter behaviors, the description is remarkably complete. It covers parameter semantics, return value semantics (total, truncated, warning), and operational caveats. The only missing piece is retry_incomplete, but overall the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining nearly every parameter: query, queries, target, field, year range, rows, contains, and lang. It provides allowed values and behaviors. However, the parameter 'retry_incomplete' is absent from the description, creating a minor gap for that one parameter.

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 opens with 'ScienceON 문헌 검색' (ScienceON literature search), clearly identifying the action (search) and resource (literature). It further specifies target types (ARTI, REPORT, ATT, RESEARCHER, ORGAN) and field options, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like status, detail, export, 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?

The description provides detailed parameter usage (query vs queries, target, field, rows, etc.) and explains the union search behavior, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like scienceON_status or scienceON_export. The usage context is clear for the search operation itself, but no alternative guidance is provided.

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