search_europepmc

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the corpus scope, the included preprint/patent sources, and the fact that every result contains an abstract snippet, citation count, open-access status, and preprint flag. This is valuable disclosure about what the tool returns and searches, well beyond the annotation metadata.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with no filler: the first identifies the tool and corpus, the second differentiates it from search_pubmed, and the third gives a concrete usage tip. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys corpus scope, result-content highlights, and a key parameter. The schema covers all arguments, and annotations cover safety behavior. A minor gap is the absence of explicit response-structure or pagination expectations, but nothing critical prevents an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds real semantic value for preprintsOnly ('surface work ahead of formal publication') and clarifies the corpus context for query meaning. It does not add to the meaning of sort, maxResults, or openAccessOnly, but the schema descriptions cover those adequately.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Europe PMC') and defines the corpus as broader than PubMed, including preprints, patents, and agricultural/biomedical databases. It also distinguishes itself from search_pubmed by naming the richer per-result fields (abstract snippet, citation count, open-access status, preprint flag). An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and why it differs from siblings.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: broader biomedical coverage, preprints, patents, and richer result metadata. It explicitly names search_pubmed as a sibling alternative, and it directs the agent to preprintsOnly for work ahead of formal publication. It does not, however, state explicit when-not conditions or repeatedly mention other sibling tools, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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