convert_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-detection of ID type, limit of 200 comma-separated IDs of same type, only PMC articles returned, and the versions flag. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid IDs) or potential empty responses, leaving minor gaps.

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 concise: two short paragraphs and three examples. Every sentence adds value - no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, constraints follow, and examples solidify understanding. Efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers input constraints, behavior, and an optional feature. Minor gaps exist: no mention of error cases or mixed-type handling, but the output schema likely covers return format. Overall, sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: ids (comma-separated, up to 200, same type), idtype (auto-detected, optional explicit setting), and versions (booleans for manuscript history). Examples further clarify usage, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 converts between four specific ID types (PubMed IDs, PMCIDs, Author Manuscript IDs, DOIs) via the PMC ID Converter API. The verb 'Convert' and the resource specification make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like fetch_records and get_summaries.

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 includes examples that show typical usage, and it notes that results are only returned for articles present in PMC, implying a limitation. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar tools (e.g., fetch_records). Some contextual tips are implied but not formalized.

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