pubmed_cited_by

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by implying the return type (PMIDs) and the workflow of following up with pubmed_summary. But it does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, rate limits, or how many results are returned, which would be richer behavioral context.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides a rationale and a practical next step. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations present, the description covers the purpose, use case, and follow-up action. It does not explicitly state the exact return format but implies it by referencing 'returned PMIDs,' which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role without additional documentation.

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?

The schema already describes the single pmid parameter with an example ('12345'), and the description also says 'given PMID.' With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is already structured, so the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find articles that cite a given PMID.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like pubmed_search (search by query) and pubmed_summary (get article details), and the subsequent phrase about tracking impact further clarifies the unique purpose.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('tracking the impact and influence of a paper') and points to a follow-up tool (pubmed_summary) for acting on the results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like pubmed_related, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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