search_pubmed

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return format but omits details like read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. The agent lacks behavioral insight.

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?

Concise with clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Efficiently communicates purpose and parameter details.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers key aspects. It lacks pagination details but overall sufficiently informs usage. Minor gap in not explaining what 'paper metadata' includes beyond dictionary format.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: query example ('machine learning'), max_results default (10), sort options ('relevance' or 'pub_date'). Since schema properties have no descriptions (coverage 0%), the description compensates well.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search academic papers from PubMed', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from numerous sibling search_* tools by explicitly naming the source database.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over similar search_* tools (e.g., search_arxiv, search_pmc) or when to avoid it. The description lacks context for selection among siblings.

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