search_europepmc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool searches and returns paper metadata, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the first sentence could be more front-loaded with key details, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'in dictionary format' might be implied by output schema). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. For a search tool with many siblings, it should include more about when to use it, result format details, or limitations. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but overall completeness is minimal.

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. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'query' is a search query string with an example, and 'max_results' has a default of 10. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail query syntax or result limits.

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 searches academic papers from Europe PMC, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('academic papers from Europe PMC'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like search_pmc or search_pubmed that might target similar databases, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_pmc or search_pubmed from the sibling list. It mentions the database (Europe PMC) but doesn't explain its scope, strengths, or limitations compared to other search tools available.

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