get_article_details

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 effectively describes key traits: '异步方式' (asynchronous method), '支持并发处理' (supports concurrent processing), '集成缓存机制' (integrated caching mechanism), '自动重试和错误恢复' (automatic retry and error recovery), and performance metrics ('比同步版本快20-40%' - 20-40% faster than synchronous version). This covers operational behavior well, though it doesn't detail error types or rate limits.

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 structured with clear sections (功能说明, 参数说明, etc.), but it's verbose with redundant details. For example, '高性能优化版本' (high-performance optimized version) is repeated in performance sections, and some points like '支持并发处理' (supports concurrent processing) and '性能更优' (better performance) overlap. It could be more concise by eliminating repetition while maintaining clarity.

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 complexity (performance-optimized with caching/retry), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is highly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, return values (including extra fields like processing_time), and behavioral traits. The output schema means return values don't need description, and the description covers all other aspects thoroughly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully under '参数说明' (parameter explanation). It specifies 'pmid: 必需，PubMed ID（如："37769091"）' (pmid: required, PubMed ID, e.g., "37769091"), adding meaning beyond the schema's basic string type by clarifying it's a PubMed ID with an example. This is excellent coverage for the single parameter.

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: '获取特定文献的详细信息' (get detailed information for specific literature) with the verb '获取' (get) and resource '文献' (literature). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for '特定文献' (specific literature) using PMID, unlike search or batch tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives for differentiation, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 usage context under '使用场景' (usage scenarios): '需要高性能的文献详情获取' (when high-performance literature detail retrieval is needed), '批量文献详情查询' (batch literature detail queries), and '大规模数据处理' (large-scale data processing). It implies this tool is for performance-critical cases but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, so it scores 4.

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