search_anatomy_biomechanics

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals two core behaviors: querying a built-in dictionary and fetching PubMed literature. However, it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as result combination logic, failure modes, language handling details, or whether an internet connection is required for the PubMed portion. The transparency is basic but incomplete.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence and adding the dual-source feature in the second. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient for an agent to parse and understand.

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 tool has two parameters and no output schema. The description covers what the tool does and its dual nature (dictionary + PubMed), but does not describe the format of the returned data or how the two sources are presented together. For a moderately complex tool with no output schema, additional context about return structure 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (muscle_or_joint accepts Chinese/English names, max_results controls PubMed count). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. Since the schema already does the work, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves standard definitions of anatomy and biomechanics, listing specific content domains (muscle function, innervation, clinical significance, movement analysis). It mentions both a built-in static dictionary and concurrent PubMed query. This specific verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools (search_pedro_evidence, search_cpg_guidelines, search_pt_laws) which focus on clinical evidence, guidelines, and legal aspects.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternative use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. While the domain (anatomy/biomechanics) is implied, the agent receives no contextual direction to choose this tool over the other search tools in the set.

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