pubmed_summary

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint; the description adds meaningful behavior: it returns summaries for multiple PMIDs, lists the included fields, and caps the batch at 200. It does not contradict the read-only annotation. Lacking rate-limit or error-behavior details, but sufficient for a lightweight lookup 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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: first states the operation and output, second gives workflow context, third states the batch limit. No repetition or filler; every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter, read-only endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells what comes back, how many PMIDs are accepted, and how it fits into the PubMed search workflow. No additional return-format details are necessary.

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 pmids parameter thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'up to 200 PMIDs at once' and 'one or more', which are not in the schema and help clarify usage. This extra constraint justifies a score above baseline.

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 and resource: 'Get article summaries' for PMIDs, and lists the exact fields returned (title, authors, journal, date, DOI). It clearly distinguishes from sibling pubmed_search by framing itself as the follow-up metadata step, and from other PubMed tools via the summary scope.

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 explicitly states a usage workflow: 'Use after pubmed_search to get full metadata for returned PMIDs.' This is strong practical guidance. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or compare it with alternatives like pubmed_fetch, so it falls shy of a 5.

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