search-medical-literature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Search for') but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., article titles, abstracts, metadata), whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or requires authentication. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Search for medical research articles in PubMed') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (search operation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of articles with IDs), how results are sorted, or any limitations (e.g., date ranges, filters). For a search tool without structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'max_results') with clear descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or result formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 verb ('Search for') and resource ('medical research articles in PubMed'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search-clinical-guidelines' or 'search-medical-journals' by specifying PubMed as the target database. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search-medical-databases' or 'search-google-scholar', which might cover overlapping content.

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 like 'search-medical-databases' or 'search-google-scholar'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific query format or when to prefer PubMed over other sources. Without this context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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