europepmc_search

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the operation (search), the resource (Europe PMC), and the return fields (title/journal/authors/DOI/open-access status), which is meaningful. However, it omits any detail about rate limits, required auth, pagination, or query syntax, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core function in the first sentence. The Chinese repetition adds the usage context ('suitable for literature review') not present in the English, so each sentence adds some value. Minor redundancy between the two languages keeps it from a 5.

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?

A simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain returns. It covers what, where, and a use case, and provides a distinction from PubMed. Missing are explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to use it) and search syntax hints, but for the tool's complexity the description is largely complete.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level detail. query and max_results are self-explanatory by name, so the agent can guess their meaning, but the description does not elabore on query syntax, supported fields, or how max_results behaves. With zero schema descriptions, the tool description should compensate and does not.

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 a specific action (full-text literature search) and a specific resource (Europe PMC/EBI). It explicitly differentiates from PubMed by noting it includes open-access full text, which is the key distinction among siblings. This makes the tool's identity and scope instantly 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?

The description gives contextual guidance: it explains that Europe PMC search includes OA full text beyond PubMed and marks it as suitable for literature reviews. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name the alternative pubmed_search, but the contrast with PubMed is enough to imply the selection criterion.

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