search_europepmc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states that it returns a list of paper metadata but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, idempotency, or pagination behavior beyond the max_results parameter.

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 concise: two lines plus structured Args/Returns sections. The key action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every element serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

The description explains the core functionality and parameters. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), the 'Returns' line is supplementary. The tool is simple, and the description covers essential aspects, though it could mention if there are any restrictions or default ordering.

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 adds significant value by explaining that 'query' is a search query string (with example 'machine learning') and that 'max_results' controls the number of papers returned, defaulting to 10. This compensates well for the bare schema.

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 'Search academic papers from Europe PMC', specifying the verb 'search' and the specific resource 'Europe PMC', which distinguishes it from sibling search tools targeting other databases (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pubmed).

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 implies usage for searching Europe PMC, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance or mention of overlapping databases like PubMed Central.

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