Pubmed Format Citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds that it returns formatted citations for given styles. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, limits) are disclosed, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is included.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations (readOnly, openWorld), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It covers the key inputs and purpose, though it omits potential notes on invalid PMIDs or rate limits, which are minor in this context.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for both parameters (pmids and format). The description merely restates the schema ('Pass a single style as a string or multiple as an array'), adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 action 'Get formatted citations' and the resource 'PubMed articles', listing specific styles (apa, mla, bibtex, ris). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pubmed_lookup_citation, which may not offer multiple style outputs.

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 implies when to use (when needing formatted citations in specific styles) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The sibling tool list exists, but the description itself lacks usage context.

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