Search articles about medical and life sciences research available on PubMed.

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a search operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as available search features, return format details (e.g., paper titles, authors, abstract preview), and performance tips, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points and examples that efficiently convey usage without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with multiple features), low schema coverage (0%), and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It thoroughly explains search capabilities, return values, and usage, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions and leveraging the output schema for return format details.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining the 'query' parameter through search features and examples, and it implies the 'max_results' parameter by mentioning return details. However, it doesn't explicitly define 'max_results' or its default value, leaving some gap.

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's purpose: 'Search PubMed for medical and life sciences research articles.' This specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('PubMed'), and domain ('medical and life sciences research articles'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_paper_fulltext' which presumably retrieves full text rather than searching.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by detailing search features and examples, and it implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_paper_fulltext' by focusing on search functionality rather than full-text retrieval. It also includes a note on best practices ('Use quotes around multi-word terms for best results').

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