pubmed_info

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

ReadOnlyHint=true already signals the tool is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the exact categories of statistics returned (record count, last update, searchable fields, link types). It does not contradict annotations and offers sufficient transparency for a parameter-less info tool.

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, both informative and free of fluff. The first delivers the core purpose and output content; the second immediately conveys practical utility. No unnecessary words 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, no-parameter informational tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns and why an agent would use it. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return categories sufficiently. The presence of sibling search tools makes the boundary clear.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description appropriately focuses on return content rather than parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PubMed database statistics'), then enumerates exactly what is included: total record count, last update, searchable fields, and link types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pubmed_search or pubmed_fetch, which perform article retrieval rather than database-level info.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for discovering which fields are available for targeted searches (e.g. [MeSH Terms], [Author], [Journal]).' While it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the context is obvious given its meta/info nature and sibling tool names.

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