article_getter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by describing what information is returned (title, abstract, full text when available, source) and specifying availability conditions ('when available from PMC for published articles'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides supporting details about identifier types and return format in bullet points. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what identifiers it accepts, and what information it returns. With an output schema presumably documenting the return structure, the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. The main gap is lack of behavioral constraints disclosure.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'pmid' parameter with examples. The description adds some semantic context by listing the specific identifier types supported (PubMed IDs, PMC IDs, DOIs), which complements but doesn't significantly expand beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch detailed information', 'retrieves full abstract and available text') and identifies the resource ('article by its identifier'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'article_searcher' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific article rather than searching for multiple articles.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by specifying the types of identifiers supported (PubMed IDs, PMC IDs, DOIs) and indicating it's for fetching detailed information about a specific article. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'article_searcher' for broader searches.

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