search_europe_pmc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing behavioral traits: async processing, concurrent request handling, caching mechanism, rate limits, automatic retry mechanism, and performance characteristics (30-50% faster than sync version). It doesn't mention authentication requirements or destructive operations, but covers most behavioral aspects well.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (功能说明, 参数说明, 返回值说明, 使用场景, 性能特点), but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence establishes purpose, but some sections contain slightly redundant information. Overall efficient but not perfectly concise.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, usage scenarios, and performance characteristics. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, yet it still provides a helpful overview.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations including required/optional status, format specifications (YYYY-MM-DD for dates), default values (max_results defaults to 10), range constraints (max_results up to 100), and examples of search syntax. This adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 the Europe PMC literature database, specifies it's a high-performance optimized version, and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it's an async version with performance improvements. The verb '搜索' (search) is specific and the resource 'Europe PMC 文献数据库' is clearly identified.

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 explicitly provides '使用场景' (usage scenarios) including bulk literature retrieval, high-performance search tasks, complex search queries, and frequent repeated queries. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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