convert_article_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by mentioning the batch limit and the four supported ID formats. However, it says nothing about error handling, authentication, or return behavior. Given the tool is a simple read-only conversion, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences with a bullet list, immediately stating the tool's purpose and then elaborating on formats. Every line contributes to understanding, with no fluff or redundant repetition of schema details. It is excellently structured and easy to scan.

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 low complexity of this tool, the output schema exists, and the parameter schema is fully documented, the description covers the essential information. It lacks a note about how this tool relates to 'resolve_article_identifier', but that gap is more of a usage guideline issue. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, providing descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of each ID format (e.g., '37000000', 'PMC7611378'), which helps the agent format inputs correctly. This goes beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 converts article IDs between formats, using the specific verb 'convert' and identifying the resource (article IDs). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on format conversion, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named 'resolve_article_identifier'.

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 context about batch conversion (up to 200 IDs) and the supported formats, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'resolve_article_identifier' for single-ID resolution. This is an implied usage scenario rather than explicit guidance.

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