pm_search_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'enhanced analysis' entails. The vague 'enhanced analysis' claim creates uncertainty about what additional processing occurs beyond basic PubMed searching.

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 gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage, though the front-loaded information is somewhat vague due to the 'enhanced analysis' qualifier. The structure is appropriate for a search tool description.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'enhanced analysis' means, how results are returned, what format they're in, or how this differs from basic PubMed API calls. The description leaves too many behavioral and output questions unanswered.

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 50% schema description coverage (only 'query' and 'dateRange' subfields have descriptions), the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters. It mentions 'enhanced analysis' but doesn't explain how this relates to the input parameters like 'publicationTypes' or 'maxResults'. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the 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 states the tool searches PubMed for research papers, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'enhanced analysis' means and doesn't differentiate this search tool from sibling tools like 'research_literature_details' or 'research_comprehensive_analysis' that might also involve PubMed searches.

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. With multiple research-related sibling tools available, there's no indication whether this is for basic literature searches, comprehensive analysis, or specific types of research queries. No exclusions or preferred use cases are mentioned.

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