nih_search_publications

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the search keys (PMIDs, application IDs, core project numbers) and what is returned (PMID and linked project number). It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 concise, with three sentences each earning their place: the resource, the search identifiers, and the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently states the domain, the accepted identifier types, and the minimal return fields. It does not explain edge cases like combining multiple parameter types or the behavior when no parameters are provided, but the schema covers pagination parameters and the read-only annotation covers safety.

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 each parameter already described with type and examples. The description reinforces the meaning of pmids, appl_ids, and core_project_nums but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as searching for publications linked to NIH-funded projects, using a specific verb and resource. It further specifies search modes (PMIDs, application IDs, core project numbers) and the return value, distinguishing it from project-level tools like nih_search_projects.

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 gives clear context for use: it is for finding publications associated with NIH-funded projects, and it lists the three accepted identifier types. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is evident from the search modes and the phrase 'NIH-funded projects.'

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