Pubmed Citation Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only notes the minimum-field requirement and the matcher backend; it discloses nothing about rate limits, matching failures, or how ambiguous matches are resolved.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and zero per-parameter documentation for a five-param tool, the definition leaves field-format expectations and failure behavior unaddressed.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds the useful combinatorial rule ('at least one', 'more fields = better match') but never explains expected formats for page, year, author, volume, or journal.

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 verb and resource: 'Resolve partial citation to PMID using NCBI's citation matcher.' This is clearly distinct from retrieval siblings like pubmed_fetch or pubmed_search, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

'At least one field required. More fields = better match.' gives in-tool guidance about how to supply inputs, but says nothing about when to choose this over pubmed_search or pubmed_fetch, so routing is left to inference.

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