search_publications

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the search criteria (title and abstract keywords) but does not disclose behaviors like result limits, pagination, ordering, or side effects. Minimal beyond basic purpose.

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?

A single sentence that is efficient and to the point. No fluff, but it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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?

The description covers the basic action and search fields. With an output schema existing, the return structure is handled. However, lacking usage guidelines and behavioral traits, it feels minimally adequate.

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 clarify parameters. It adds that the 'query' parameter searches by title and abstract keywords, which provides some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, no format or operators are specified.

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 it searches synthetic publications by title and abstract keywords. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_protocols, though it does not explicitly contrast them. The verb 'search' and resource 'publications' are specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_protocols. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools might be preferred.

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