fetch_article_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It honestly describes the fetch/read nature and what data it returns, which implies minimal side effects. However, it does not disclose any operational details such as error behavior, potential rate limits, permissions, or behavior on invalid input. The absence of risky behavior (mutation) earns it a mid-range score.

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 consists of exactly two sentences with no redundant words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists the key output fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema means return values are already structurally covered, so the description need not explain them in detail. The description gives a solid overview of what the tool returns and implies its scope. It could be slightly more explicit about how this tool fits with siblings like fetch_full_article, but overall it is complete for the tool's simple fetch functionality.

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?

All three parameters (pmid, database, include_full_metadata) have complete schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, nor does it highlight any special parameter interactions or value formatting.

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 identifies the tool as fetching 'detailed article summary and metadata' and enumerates the specific fields returned (title, authors, abstract, MeSH terms, journal details, DOI). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from search tools, but it does not explicitly compare against fetch_full_article, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 implies the tool should be used when an article summary or metadata is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., fetch_full_article for full text). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional scenarios mentioned.

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