oncofiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about operational constraints.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description doesn't need to explain them, but overall it leaves gaps in guiding the agent.

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 effectively explains each parameter: 'text' searches in title, summary, and tags; 'source' filters by examples like pubmed; and 'limit' specifies maximum results. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more detail on source options or text matching behavior.

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 saved research entries by text and/or source.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (saved research entries), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_research_entries' or 'search_documents', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'list_research_entries' (which might list all entries without filtering) or 'search_documents' (which might search different content), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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