pubmed_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that results include metadata, abstracts, and citations, and by mentioning supported query features like Boolean operators and MeSH terms. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is compact 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?

The description covers the main output contents and several key parameters, and the schema covers the remaining parameters. With no output schema, the description explains that results contain metadata, abstracts, and citations. It could arguably mention sort_by or max_results usage, but it is otherwise complete for a search tool.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful extra detail beyond the schema for query, mentioning field tags like [Title] and [Author], and gives usage guidance for format and days_back, which helps the agent choose parameter values.

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 'Search PubMed biomedical literature database' and describes the output as 'articles matching your query with metadata, abstracts, and citations.' This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like pubmed_get_details or pubmed_find_related.

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 clear in-tool guidance for format and days_back, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like pubmed_get_details or pubmed_find_related. Usage guidance is mostly implied by the search-oriented purpose.

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