get-article-details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a read-only operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., abstract, authors, citations). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It directly communicates what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails in the return values, behavioral constraints, or how it differs from sibling search tools. For a tool with no structured coverage beyond input schema, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'pmid' fully documented in the schema as 'PubMed ID (PMID) of the article'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the need for a PMID, so it meets the baseline score without adding value.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and target resource ('specific medical article by PMID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'search-medical-literature' or 'search-medical-journals' that might also retrieve article information, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a PMID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search-medical-databases' for broader searches, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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