pubmed_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety of the operation is known. The description adds value by explaining the ranking methodology (NCBI's pre-computed similarity scores based on shared MeSH terms, co-citations, and content overlap), which goes beyond the basic annotation. It does not describe return format or error cases, but for a simple read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second explains the underlying mechanism, and the third gives an application context. No repetition or fluff.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate. It explains purpose and methodology, and the schema covers parameters. However, it does not describe what the returned related articles look like or any potential failure modes (e.g., invalid PMID), which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (pmid and max_results), including types, constraints, and defaults. The description only mentions 'given PMID' without adding new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate with extra insights.

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 tool's function: 'Find articles related to a given PMID, ranked by relevance score.' This uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('articles related to a given PMID'), and the ranking detail distinguishes it from siblings like pubmed_cited_by or pubmed_summary.

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: 'Great for literature discovery — finding similar papers to a known article.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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