build_clinical_query

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 only states 'convert' but does not disclose whether it calls an external API, has rate limits, or requires authentication. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is too short for a tool with two parameters and potential complexity. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 role in a clinical query pipeline, the description lacks sufficient context about input parameters, output format (though output schema exists), and how it fits with sibling tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke it.

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 description does not mention either of the two parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The 'filters' parameter is unexplained, and 'natural_language_question' is only implied by the main sentence.

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 converts a natural-language clinical question into a PubMed-ready query, specifying both the action (convert) and the domain (clinical question to query). It distinguishes from sibling tools which perform search, retrieval, or summarization.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_pubmed. The description implies it is a preprocessing step but does not state it should be used before search tools. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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