read_pubmed_paper

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to transparently state that the tool returns an error message and does not actually read papers. The contradiction between the stated purpose and actual return is misleading.

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 somewhat concise but poorly structured. The contradictory nature ('read' vs 'unsupported') makes the information less efficient. It could be clearer and more front-loaded.

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 does not fully explain the tool's behavior. It omits that the tool is non-functional or returns an error. With no output schema provided, the agent lacks complete information to decide whether to use it.

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 adds meaning to both parameters: paper_id is explained as 'PubMed ID (PMID)' and save_path is noted as 'unused', which goes beyond the bare schema. Given 0% schema coverage, this is helpful.

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 'Read and extract text content from a PubMed paper' but the Returns section reveals that direct paper reading is not supported, creating a contradiction and making the purpose unclear.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include numerous read_* and search_* tools, but the description does not differentiate or offer usage context.

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