search_literature

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 transparently states that the tool searches PubMed and fetches abstracts, covering the core behavior. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or limitations like only returning metadata rather than full text. This is adequate but leaves 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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a brief usage tip, and then a clear two-item argument list. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the source (PubMed), the purpose (search literature), and the return type (abstracts). It could be improved by noting that it is limited to PubMed and does not fetch full articles, but overall it is sufficient for a basic search tool.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: query with an example ('KRAS lung cancer') and max_results as 'Maximum number of papers to return.' This compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions (0% coverage) and provides additional meaning beyond names and the default value.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Search PubMed for biomedical literature and fetch abstracts.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which focus on protein structures, genes, and molecules) by explicitly mentioning biomedical literature search.

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 clear usage context by stating it is 'Useful for finding the latest research on diseases, drugs, or genes.' While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the sibling tools are clearly focused on different domains, making the appropriate use case evident.

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