pubmed_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior — use_history stores the search server-side and returns webenv & query_key — plus mentions query translation and audit provenance. But it never states that this is a non-mutating read, says nothing about NCBI E-utilities rate limits/API-key throttling, and does not describe the return payload.

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?

Effectively front-loaded: one summary sentence followed by a compact Args list, with no redundant prose. The opening sentence leans on opaque jargon ('reproducibility object', 'audit provenance') that consumes space without resolving into actionable meaning.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but leaves the agent guessing on return shape, pagination semantics, rate-limit behavior, and how this differs from sibling search_pubmed. Adequate to invoke, incomplete to invoke confidently in a crowded sibling set.

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 0% (titles only), so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents all seven parameters, including the 1-200 bound on max_results, that start maps to retstart, the allowed sort values, and that date_from/date_to are publication-year bounds. It stops short of clarifying how start/max_results should be combined for paging or what webenv/query_key are consumed by.

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 (search PubMed / NCBI esearch) and hints at distinctive features (query translation, audit provenance), so the agent knows this is an Entrez-backed PubMed search. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling 'search_pubmed', which an agent could easily pick instead.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to alternatives such as pubmed_fetch, pubmed_get, or search_pubmed. The only usage-adjacent hint is that use_history stores the search on the Entrez History server, which is a parameter behavior rather than routing guidance.

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