bc_get_europepmc_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns search results with specific fields (title, authors, abstract, etc.) and error messages, but it does not mention rate limiting, pagination behavior, or handling of empty results. The disclosure is basic but not fully comprehensive.

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 very concise, with only two sentences for the purpose and a clear list of return values. Every sentence is necessary and no 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 that there is an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality of searching articles across multiple fields. It mentions the return structure (resultList with article details) and the ability to combine terms. However, it omits details about the sort_by parameter and the maximum page_size, which are covered in the schema. Overall, it is complete for a search tool of moderate complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to combine search terms and what the return format contains, going beyond the individual parameter descriptions in the schema. However, it does not add detailed semantics for each parameter, such as sort_by options.

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 purpose: 'Search Europe PMC articles by query, title, abstract, or author.' It uses specific verbs ('Search') and resources ('Europe PMC articles'), distinguishing it from siblings like bc_get_europepmc_fulltext which retrieves full text rather than searching.

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 usage guidance by mentioning combining search terms with 'and'/'or' logic, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling search tools like bc_search_studies or bc_search_google_scholar_publications. The guidance is present but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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