Pubmed Europepmc Search

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses significant behavioral traits: coverage scope (preprints, patents, etc.), pagination mechanism (cursorMark), default sources, sorting behavior with a caveat about preprints (P_PDATE_D ignored for PPR-only sets), and result types. This adds substantial value.

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, well-structured paragraph of about 5 sentences, each carrying meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then covers usage, pagination, defaults, and sorting. No waste or 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?

Given 6 parameters, an output schema (so return values need no explanation), and the complexity of Europe PMC search, the description covers query syntax, pagination, sources, result types, sorting, and special cases. It is fully complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the tool description adds essential context: query field token examples, default sources and how to override, cursorMark usage for pagination, and detailed sorting caveats. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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' and the resource 'Europe PMC', a broad open-access biomedical corpus. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pubmed_search_articles by emphasizing broader coverage including preprints, patents, and Agricola, and explicitly says when to use it for additional coverage.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when additional coverage is needed — preprints and EPMC-only OA records are the typical recovery.' It also explains pagination via cursorMark and default sources. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, which would make it a 5.

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