article_search

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals federated search and deduplication. Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world. The description could further explain deduplication logic or result ordering, but its current level is satisfactory.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of articles with fields, pagination info). For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are already present. The main description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. The limit and dateRange parameter descriptions in the schema are helpful, meeting the baseline threshold.

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 'Search literature across multiple backends with federated search and deduplication' clearly states the action (search), resource (literature), and key differentiators (multiple backends, federated, deduplication). This distinguishes it from siblings like article_get (single article) and other domain-specific searches.

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 implies it is for cross-source literature search, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like individual backend tools (e.g., pubmed directly). It lacks when-not advice or when to prefer other search tools among siblings.

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