download_pubmed

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a message indicating direct PDF download is not supported, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it uses 'attempt' which implies potential success, creating ambiguity. With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden but could be more explicit.

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 concise with two sentences plus Args/Returns section. It efficiently conveys purpose, parameters, and return behavior. However, the first sentence could be more precise than 'attempt to download' given the actual outcome.

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 description adequately covers the tool's simple behavior: it always returns a message that download is not supported. With an output schema likely existing (though not shown), the return description is sufficient. For a stub tool, completeness is high.

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 description explains both parameters: paper_id is a PubMed ID (PMID), and save_path is a directory with default './downloads'. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles, especially since schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter descriptions are clear and directly useful.

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 states it attempts to download a PubMed paper PDF, identifying the specific resource (PubMed) and action (download). However, the return value contradicts this by indicating direct PDF download is not supported, causing some confusion about the tool's true purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are many working download tools for other sources and read tools for PubMed. The description does not warn that this tool will not actually download, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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