pubmed_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful mode behavior – normalized returns a deterministic schema with structured missingness indicators, raw returns verbatim XML with a SHA-256 integrity hash – which is real added context. But it is silent on error/not-found behavior, auth or rate limits, and whether normalized output is lossy, leaving significant disclosure gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and states purpose and payload in one breath, and the Args list is compact with no redundant prose. Slightly heavier than necessary but every line carries information.

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 takes on return-value explanation and does so at a useful level (normalized schema vs raw XML + hash). Combined with the documented parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case/error handling is unaddressed.

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, and it does: it documents both parameters, gives the PMID format constraint (1-9 digits), and supplies the enum-like mode values 'normalized'/'raw' plus their semantics, which the schema itself lacks. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., what 'deterministic schema' concretely contains).

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 and resource – 'Retrieve a single PubMed record by PMID' – and the singular scope contrasts implicitly with pubmed_batch_fetch. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from close siblings like pubmed_fetch or search_pubmed, so an agent must infer which retrieval tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: retrieve when you already hold a PMID. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many retrieval/search siblings, and no stated prerequisite that the caller must already have resolved an identifier.

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