search_pedro_evidence

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

The description discloses the data source (PubMed E-utilities) and output format (DOI links, PEDro backup URL), which adds behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency, and it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the query finds no results. It moderately informs but leaves gaps.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the source and content type, the second explains the mechanism and output. It is efficient without being terse.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for a simple search tool. It explains the data source and output links, which is sufficient for basic use. However, it lacks details on result format, pagination, error handling, or any PEDro-specific nuances that could affect an agent's invocation (e.g., PEDro score availability). It is complete enough for a minimal viable description but not thorough.

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 descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, simply restating the purpose of the tool. It does not clarify query syntax, language support, or how results are sorted, so no extra value beyond 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 the tool queries the PEDro physiotherapy evidence database for RCTs and meta-analyses, specifying the use of PubMed E-utilities and output including DOI links and PEDro backup URLs. This differentiates it from siblings like search_cpg_guidelines or search_pt_laws by targeting a specific evidence source.

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 implies use for searching RCTs and systematic reviews in physiotherapy, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_cpg_guidelines for guidelines, search_pt_laws for laws). No exclusion criteria or context for preferring one over another is provided.

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