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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and closed-corpus nature are covered. The description adds the corpus size and the return shape ('文献列表（含 PMCID）'), which is useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about relevance ranking, pagination, or defaults for limit.

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 pipe-delimited USE WHEN / ALIASES / RETURNS layout is front-loaded and scannable, with no filler sentences. The bilingual duplication of the title and aliases adds some redundancy without new meaning.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only search tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema is fully documented, the description covers purpose, trigger, and return shape. Only minor gaps remain: result ordering, the default for limit, and when to prefer the PubMed sibling.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'q' and 'limit' described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, default, or maximum-limit guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Literature search') plus concrete scope ('1.53M PMC full texts', in-house corpus), so an agent knows exactly what is searched. It stops short of naming the sibling pubmed_search; the alias 'PubMed替代' only hints at the distinction rather than drawing it.

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?

'USE WHEN: search the in-house PMC corpus for literature / evidence / state of the art' gives a clear triggering context. There is no explicit when-not or direct routing to pubmed_search, so the agent must infer the boundary between the two search tools.

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