BioMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include articles from PubMed and optionally preprints from bioRxiv/medRxiv, and clarifies that it searches for articles about topics, not database records. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a search tool with 9 parameters.

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-structured with a clear purpose statement, prerequisite warning, usage guidelines, and examples. It uses bullet points efficiently for examples. However, the example usage section could be more concise, and some sentences are slightly verbose, but overall it's front-loaded and informative without significant waste.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context adequately. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more details on limitations or error handling to be fully comprehensive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying the tool searches for topics like genes, variants, diseases, or chemicals, which aligns with parameter names but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 searches PubMed/PubTator3 for research articles and preprints, specifying the verb ('search') and resource ('research articles and preprints'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with variant_searcher for database records, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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: it states when to use this tool (for articles about genes, variants, diseases, or chemicals), when not to use it (not for database records), and names an alternative tool (variant_searcher). It also includes a prerequisite to use the 'think' tool first, offering comprehensive usage instructions.

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