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 effectively describes key behaviors: AND semantics for multi-term queries, ranking logic (relevance based on text matches), and pagination support (limit/offset). It also specifies the max limit (200). However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, performance expectations, or authentication needs, leaving some 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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by behavioral details, then a clear 'Args:' section with bullet-point explanations. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently conveys complex information in a readable format.

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's complexity (7 parameters, search functionality) and no annotations, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, behavior, and parameters. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidelines compared to siblings, but overall it's highly complete for agent understanding.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 7 parameters: explains what 'text' searches (filename, institution, etc.), gives examples for 'institution' and 'category', clarifies date formats, and defines 'limit' and 'offset' for pagination. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making parameters understandable and actionable.

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's purpose: 'Search medical documents by text, institution, category, or date range.' It specifies the resource (medical documents) and the search dimensions, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_documents' (which likely lists without search) and 'get_document_by_id' (which retrieves by ID). The specificity helps the agent understand this is a filtered search operation.

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 usage through the listed search parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'list_documents' (which might return all documents without filtering) or 'search_research' (which might search different content). The guidance is limited to the tool's own functionality without sibling context.

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