search_biomedical_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as safety (read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, or side effects. It only lists generic actions; for example, it doesn't clarify if 'score' and 'group' imply state changes or are purely analytical.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core action, but it omits critical details that could be included without length increase. It earns its place but is insufficiently informative.

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?

Despite having an output schema (unseen), the description lacks context on data sources, scoring methodology, grouping logic, and summary format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully understand its capabilities.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'optionally summarize' hints at include_summary, but 'query' and 'max_results_per_source' are not explained. Additionally, 'group' is mentioned but no grouping parameter exists, causing confusion.

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?

Description uses specific verbs (retrieve, score, group, summarize) and resource (biomedical evidence), giving a clear sense of functionality. However, it lacks differentiation from the sibling tool 'health' and doesn't specify what constitutes 'evidence' (e.g., literature types, databases).

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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'health' or other alternatives. The description does not state prerequisites or contextual cues for invocation.

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