pubmed_get_details

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint annotations: it accepts a single PMID or an array up to 20, and returns fields such as abstract, authors, journal, DOI, and MeSH terms. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but annotations already establish the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose and input mode are front-loaded, the return content is summarized efficiently, and the usage condition completes the guidance without redundancy.

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?

For a straightforward read-only lookup tool, the description covers input shape, batch limit, return content, and when to use it. The only notable gap is that the 'format' enum semantics are not described, leaving the agent to infer what 'concise' versus 'detailed' means.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the PMID input forms and adds useful output context, but it does not explain the 'format' parameter values (concise, standard, detailed) beyond the schema's minimal 'Output format' label.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve complete metadata for specific PubMed articles by PMID.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from pubmed_search, pubmed_find_related, and pubmed_extract_info by emphasizing PMID-based retrieval of full records.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when you have specific PMIDs from a previous search or citation and need the full record.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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