Pubmed Format Citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that multiple styles can be requested, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. 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?

Two sentences with no waste: first states purpose, second gives parameter usage. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Output schema exists (though not shown), so return format is covered. Description explains input parameters and invocation pattern. Could mention error handling or rate limits, but overall sufficient for a simple tool.

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 100%, but the description adds clarifying usage: 'Pass a single style as a string or multiple as an array,' reinforcing the anyOf schema. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 gets formatted citations for PubMed articles, specifying the verb 'Get' and resource 'formatted citations'. It lists possible styles, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like searching or fetching full text.

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 usage for when citations in specific formats are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pubmed_lookup_citation. However, the context is clear enough given sibling tool names.

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