search_pmc_fulltext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses no behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or any operational constraints beyond the simple search action.

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 concise sentence with no waste. However, it is too minimal, missing important details that would justify a higher score. It is appropriately front-loaded but could be expanded.

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?

For a search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, result ordering, or limitations, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool effectively.

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%, and the description simply repeats the schema text for both parameters without adding new meaning or context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional value is provided.

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 Central for full-text open access articles, specifying the resource (PMC) and scope (full-text, open access), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_pubmed that likely search titles/abstracts.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_pubmed or get_abstract_help. The description implies it's for full-text searches but lacks explicit context on exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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