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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's read-only framing is consistent rather than novel. It adds meaningful context by describing the complete return payload, the corpus scope, retraction status, and the statement that it contains no patient context.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core action and resource, then summarizing key return fields, then giving usage guidance, and ending with a relevant caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 small single-parameter input schema, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies the essential context an agent needs: what the tool returns, when to call it, and what it does not contain. No significant gap remains.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'pmid' parameter with a detailed description and validation pattern, so schema coverage is high. The description adds only the singular lookup context and not new parameter-level details, which meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Retrieve the complete public bibliographic record for one PMID from Folklore's PubMed-derived genetics corpus.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search tools by emphasizing a single-record lookup with a comprehensive result set.

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 explicitly says 'Use after literature search when a user asks to inspect a specific publication,' giving clear contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended role relative to the sibling tools is evident.

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