pubmed_extract_info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds the token-efficiency observation and the scoping of sections, but does not disclose any deeper behavioral details such as output shape, error behavior, or section-level edge cases. This is adequate 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?

Three sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the usage condition follows immediately, and the efficiency advantage is stated once. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of guidance.

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 tool has only two parameters, the schema covers both fully, and the annotations cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description is sufficient for deciding when to call it. It falls slightly short of 5 because there is no output schema and the description does not describe the exact structure or format of the extracted sections, which would be useful for this kind of extraction 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for 'pmid' and enumerated 'sections'. The description mentions examples of sections ('author details, structured abstract, keywords, DOI) that overlap with those enum values, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') with a clear resource ('specific structured sections from a PubMed article') and a concrete scope ('only certain aspects...rather than the full record'). It also differentiates from pubmed_get_details by naming the token-efficiency angle, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'when you need only certain aspects' and contrasts it with 'the full record'. It also names the alternative tool, pubmed_get_details, and the condition under which this one is preferable ('targeted extraction'), giving an agent actionable selection criteria.

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