pubmed_fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return content ('title, authors, affiliation, and abstract body') and available formats ('plain text or XML'), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The first states purpose, the second details output, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 read-only fetch tool with well-documented parameters, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from the sibling. It lacks potential caveats like error handling or rate limits, but the essential selection and invocation context is complete.

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 clear descriptions for both 'pmids' (comma-separated) and 'format' (enum with default). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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: 'Get full article abstracts as plain text or XML for one or more PMIDs.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling pubmed_summary by emphasizing 'full' abstracts and mentioning the alternative tool directly.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use for reading full abstracts when pubmed_summary metadata is not enough.' This provides a clear comparison to the sibling tool and signals when this is the appropriate choice versus alternatives.

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