文献搜索

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that this tool is read-only and returns only metadata (no full text). It also discloses caching behavior (24-hour cache via use_cache parameter). There is no contradiction between description and annotations.

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 well-organized with bullet points and sections. The first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by a warning, search strategies, and parameter details. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or filler.

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 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, but the description covers all aspects: input parameters with defaults, return values (titles, authors, abstract, PMCID, DOI, etc.), and behavioral notes (caching, metadata-only). This is complete for an agent to use 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: keyword (required), sources (optional, auto-selected), max_results (default 10), search_type (with enum values and explanations), and use_cache (default true). This adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '多源文献搜索工具。用于查找文献并获取 PMCID.' It specifies the resource (literature) and action (search), and distinguishes from siblings like get_article_details by focusing on searching and returning metadata.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it returns only metadata; for full text, users should use the '文献全文' tool with the returned pmcid. It also details search strategies (comprehensive, fast, precise, preprint) with explanations, helping the agent choose appropriately.

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