pubmed_search

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, and the description aligns with those. It adds useful behavioral context by describing the returned content (metadata, abstracts, citations), supported query syntax, and format-based output options, going beyond the schema.

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 concise and well front-loaded, starting with a direct statement of purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core search behavior, return content, query syntax, and format selection. It does not describe pagination or sort behavior in prose, but those are fully documented in the schema, so the overall context is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining Boolean operators, MeSH terms, field tags like [Title] and [Author], and recommending when to use compact versus detailed formats, which supplements the schema 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 searches the PubMed biomedical literature database and returns matching articles with metadata, abstracts, and citations. It identifies a specific resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as pubmed_find_related or pubmed_get_details.

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 gives concrete usage context, such as using compact format for quick browsing and detailed for in-depth analysis, and using days_back for recent publications. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or prefer a sibling, but the usage guidance is clear enough for common search workflows.

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