advanced_search

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 does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves or any side effects.

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 and front-loaded: two sentences that immediately state the core purpose and value. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has an output schema, so return value documentation is not a burden on the description. However, the description lacks context about when to use this tool versus simpler search tools, and it does not provide examples or clarify the structure of the query_builder beyond what the schema already states. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema covers 60% of the parameters with descriptions (e.g., query_builder field/term/operator, date_field options). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mentioning 'multiple terms, fields, and Boolean operators' but not detailing the specific parameters or their composition. Since schema coverage is moderate, the description does not significantly compensate for missing parameter details.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('complex Boolean queries with field-specific search'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like global_search and pubmed_search by emphasizing complex Boolean logic and field-specific control.

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 use for complex queries requiring Boolean operators and field-specific search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The usage context is implied but not directly articulated.

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