pubmed_fetch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses provenance guarantees ('every field comes strictly from the NCBI response'), no-inference policy for missing fields, and the concrete status values 'success' and 'not_found'. It omits auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and method, with the return-status detail following. No filler, though the two return-value sentences could be compressed into one.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return contract (per-record status and provenance). For a single-parameter fetch tool this is nearly sufficient; the main gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the many similar sibling tools.

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?

There is one parameter (pmids) at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies exact-identifier lookup via 'exact PubMed records', which loosely conveys that pmids are precise identifiers, but it never states the format (bare PMID strings vs. prefixed), nor whether order is preserved or how many IDs are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch), resource (PubMed records), and method (NCBI efetch), and the word 'exact' signals the precise-lookup nature of the tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like pubmed_get or pubmed_batch_fetch, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the closely related siblings (pubmed_get, pubmed_batch_fetch, fetch_abstracts) are named as alternatives. The intended usage (retrieve records by exact PMIDs) is only implied by the phrase 'exact PubMed records'.

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