pubmed_database_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data comes 'directly from NCBI EInfo' and is 'audit-grade,' which is useful provenance context, but it does not describe read-only safety, rate limits, or error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the return contents and followed by provenance. No filler, though slightly terse for a tool whose main value is a list of returned fields.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what fields are returned and the parameter default, which is adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could say more about the read-only, non-destructive nature and the expected response shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'db' parameter. It explicitly identifies the parameter as an 'NCBI database' and states the default is 'pubmed', covering the only parameter's meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata, last update date, record count, and search field tags for an NCBI database'), making its purpose clear and distinct from search/fetch siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 this is an informational/metadata tool by listing what it returns, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing it over siblings like pubmed_search or pubmed_fetch. Usage is only implied.

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