search_medrxiv

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It mentions that results are 'recent' and provides a workflow, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on error, or any rate limits. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 clear sections (summary, usage, domain, workflow, args, returns, example). While slightly verbose, it front-loads essential information and earns its length through clarity.

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 description explains purpose and usage adequately for a simple tool, but it lacks details on the return structure (e.g., fields in the list) and error handling. Given no output schema, more specificity would improve completeness.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden. It adds concrete examples of category names and explains that 'query' is a category name, not a keyword, which significantly aids understanding beyond the bare 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 it searches medical preprints on medRxiv and specifies the domain and categorical search mechanism, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_pubmed.

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?

It explicitly lists when to use (for clinical/medical research, latest studies) and implies when not to (by category, not keyword). The workflow and domain list provide additional context, though it stops short of naming alternative tools for keyword searches.

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