ncbi_esummary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the return shape ('a text item holding parsed JSON summary data') and the failure mode for invalid database or empty IDs, including the 'Error:' prefix. This is useful operational guidance, though it does not cover all possible API behaviors.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds a return/error note. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the RETURNS/Error sections are well structured.

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 relatively simple 3-parameter wrapper with no output schema, the description gives purpose, relationship to esearch, return format, and error handling. It could be more complete by briefly contrasting with ncbi_efetch or describing the summary fields, but the provided context is sufficient for basic correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the descriptions in the schema already explain database/db alias and the accepted ids formats. The tool description only references database/ids in the error conditions, adding little semantic 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch summary information for given IDs using esummary.' It clearly conveys the tool's function and positions it as a follow-up to esearch, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling retrieval tools like ncbi_efetch.

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?

'Useful for getting detailed info after esearch' gives contextual placement but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use. It implies usage after esearch but doesn't name competing tools such as ncbi_efetch or list_databases.

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