get_supporting_publications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It discloses the data sources (Europe PMC / PubMed) and the returned fields, but it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or whether the query is substring/relevance-based. For a read-only fetch tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose and then uses clear Args/Returns sections. It is appropriately sized with almost no waste, though the Returns section is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists.

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 simple publication-search tool with an output schema, the description gives enough information to invoke it correctly: source, parameter semantics, and return content. The main gap is the lack of sibling routing guidance, particularly versus 'get_publication_details', but that is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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, and it does: it explains that 'query' can be a gene symbol, disease name, or scientific query string, and that 'limit' is the maximum number of peer-reviewed publications to return. Both parameters are given meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('authoritative supporting scientific literature from Europe PMC / PubMed'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_publication_details' or explain how the two differ in granularity or use case.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The reader must infer that it is for literature searches simply from the tool name and purpose.

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