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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds material context beyond them: provenance (PubTator 3 search index at NCBI/NLM), the machine-extracted rather than curated caveat, keyless auth, and pagination cadence of 10 per page.

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?

Front-loads what is returned, then the calling requirement, then usage routing and provenance. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates what each passage contains (matched sentence, both entity mentions, PMID, journal, date), plus paging, auth and data provenance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the page size of 10 and the 'ids or plain names' flexibility. The description's restatement of 'give the relation type and both entities' and '10 at a time' largely duplicates structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource ('the supporting passages behind one specific PubTator 3 relation') with concrete returned fields, and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling pubtator_relations. An agent can distinguish it from pubtator_relations without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: 'Use after pubtator_relations to audit a predicted relation,' naming the sibling and the condition that selects this tool. It does not state when not to use it or name any other alternative, so it falls just short of the top band.

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