Metis · Librarian — Scan Pubmed Alerts

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

The description discloses the free API, no key needed, daily safety, and insertion to news_briefs. However, lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. Given no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, technical detail, usage context, and parameter explanations. It is reasonably concise for the information provided.

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?

With an output schema available, the description covers purpose, parameters, use context, and behavior. It lacks return value description but the output schema likely fills that gap. Idempotency and error handling are omitted, but for a daily scan tool this may be sufficient.

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 thoroughly explains each parameter: query's multi-source fallback, reldate's meaning and default, max_results' purpose. This provides substantial value beyond the minimal schema.

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 tool scans PubMed for recent papers matching a query. It mentions daily scheduling and response insertion, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like scan_literature or search_literature, though the PubMed specificity is implied.

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 mentions daily scheduling context and safety, but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools for more complex queries or different sources.

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