Pubmed Spell Check

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'NCBI's suggested correction', providing behavioral context without contradiction. No further disclosure is needed for this simple operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short, front-loaded sentences that convey the essential function and usage context without any wasted words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, annotations covering safety and openness), the description is complete. It provides enough information for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, especially alongside the structured fields.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter as 'PubMed search query to spell-check'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'spell-check' and the resource 'query from NCBI', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also mentions 'NCBI's suggested correction' and positions it as useful for refining search queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on searching or fetching articles.

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 phrase 'Useful for refining search queries' implies the tool should be used before conducting searches to correct spelling. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling search tools exist for actual retrieval.

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