pubmed_medical_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the responsibility. It fully discloses the paywall mechanism (x402 authorization, $0.005 USDC), the enriched return format (pmid, title, authors, etc.), and the fallback 402 accept-list response. No contradictions.

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 moderately sized (4-5 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds necessary context, but could be slightly trimmed without losing 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value structure and the payment process. For a search tool with 3 parameters, it is complete and actionable.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the enrichment block and payment flow, going beyond the schema definitions.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'PubMed (NCBI) for medical / life-sciences literature'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which are unrelated (e.g., osm_geocode, fred_macro_series).

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 notes it is 'Ideal for medical RAG agents', providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though siblings are unrelated, so no confusion arises.

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