match_citations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that ECitMatch only supports plain-text output and returns raw response under 'raw_text'. Adds important behavioral context about output format and limitation.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, then format, then example. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. Appropriate length for a single-parameter tool.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description explains input format and raw output. Complete enough for a batch query tool, though lacks error handling or rate limits. Minor gap.

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?

Schema has 0% coverage with no description for the citations parameter. Description fully compensates by explaining the pipe-delimited ECitMatch format and providing an explicit example, adding critical meaning 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?

Description clearly states the tool batch matches free-text citations against PubMed to retrieve PMIDs. It specifies the verb 'match', the resource 'citations against PubMed', and the output 'PMIDs'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_pubmed and convert_ids.

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?

Description implies usage when you have citation strings and need PMIDs, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No when-not or alternative guidance provided.

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