Search studies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the return shape ('summary records with evidence codes and URLs') and pagination-relevant fields, but doesn't disclose result limits or pagination behavior beyond what the schema shows.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: first describes the search scope and filters, second describes the return format. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no wasted words.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main searchable fields and return type, but lacks detail on pagination behavior, result limits, and how evidence_code enum values map to meanings. With annotations covering safety, the main gaps are operational rather than safety-related.

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 57%. The description mentions keyword fields, evidence code, linked entity, and year range, which maps to most parameters and adds the important note that query can be omitted for filter-only listing. However, limit and offset semantics are left to the schema, and no enum values are explained.

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 (Search) and resource (curated studies), and enumerates which fields are searched. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_study, though the 'search' vs 'get' distinction is reasonably clear.

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?

Implies usage context via 'search by keywords... optionally filtered,' and the schema notes that query can be omitted to list by filters only. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs get_study, search_entities, or find_relations.

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