Pubmed Format Citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating citation-generation operation but does not disclose read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior for invalid PMIDs or styles, or whether data is fetched live.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it remains somewhat under-informative for a tool with sibling alternatives.

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?

An output schema exists, and the input schema fully documents both parameters, so return values and parameter details need not be explained in the description. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves selection among sibling citation-related tools incomplete.

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%, and both parameters (pmids and style) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Generate) and resource (formatted citations for articles), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like pubmed_citation_search or pubmed_fetch, nor does it mention the PMID-based input or citation styles.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as pubmed_citation_search or pubmed_fetch. Usage is only implied by the name, with no preconditions, exclusions, or workflow context.

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