europepmc_paper_search_by_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that only the first page of results is returned, that ordering is by Europe PMC relevance ranking, and that no API key is needed. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Search' implies no side effects, and these details are genuinely useful.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: the source and distinctness, the first-page and ordering behavior, and the auth requirement. No filler, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a simple search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers source, pagination, ordering, and auth. It is ambiguous about the relationship between max_results and 'first page', and it omits any details about the returned result format, but for a keyword search with two parameters, this is reasonably 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%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It only mentions 'by keyword', which maps to the query parameter, but says nothing about max_results semantics, query syntax, or how pagination interacts with max_results. This is a significant gap.

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 identifies the tool as a keyword search over Europe PMC, specifies the resource aggregator (EBI's life-sciences aggregator), and explicitly distinguishes it from NCBI PubMed. This allows an agent to immediately tell it apart from the many sibling search tools.

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 clear context that this is for Europe PMC literature, and it explicitly notes it is distinct from PubMed, which helps direct an agent away from the PubMed tool. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-to-use/not-to-use rules beyond that one distinction.

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