pubmed_get_details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the limit of up to 20 PMIDs and the specific fields returned (abstract, authors, journal, DOI, MeSH terms), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention error handling, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every sentence provides value.

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 tool's moderate complexity, with 2 parameters and annotations but no output schema, the description covers the input format, limits, expected return content, and usage context. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description only restates what the schema already says (single or array, up to 20), adding no additional parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 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 'Retrieve complete metadata for specific PubMed articles by PMID', which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on PMID-based retrieval rather than searching, and mentions 'complete metadata' which is distinct from other tools.

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?

It says 'Use when you have specific PMIDs from a previous search or citation and need the full record', providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., pubmed_search) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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