oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the description covers all parameters, the description is reasonably complete for a search tool. However, the lack of behavioral context (permissions, result structure, error conditions) and usage guidelines relative to sibling tools leaves gaps that prevent a higher score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It clarifies what each parameter does (e.g., 'query' searches summary and description, 'is_medical' filters to medical events only) and provides format guidance for dates. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 searches calendar entries by specific criteria (text, date, medical relevance), providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('calendar entries'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_calendar_event' or 'search_activity_log', which prevents a perfect 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 'get_calendar_event' (which appears to retrieve a single event) or other search tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with similar tools.

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