mgnify_get_publication

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic 'Get' action without mentioning read-only nature, error handling, or any side effects. For a simple getter this may suffice, but it does not add any context beyond the obvious.

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 with zero fluff. It immediately conveys the purpose without unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness and proper front-loading.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is adequate for a simple getter, though it does not mention not-found behavior or usage context. Minor gap, but acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides a description for the pubmed_id parameter (with an example). The description's mention of 'by PubMed id' adds minimal value, merely restating the parameter. Given the schema coverage, a 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?

The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (publication), and the distinguishing key (PubMed id). This immediately differentiates it from sibling tools like mgnify_list_publications (list all) and mgnify_study_publications (publications per study).

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 implies usage when you have a specific PubMed id, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mgnify_list_publications or mgnify_study_publications. The context is clear but not explicit, so it earns a 3.

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