Get corpus summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds context by specifying the corpus is public and by setting an intended-use boundary, though it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as freshness guarantees or coverage semantics.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful intended-use caveat without padding 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it states what is returned, that it is public corpus-level metadata, and the boundary of appropriate use. No additional operational details are needed for correct invocation.

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 is empty with 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The mention of metadata categories helps orient the agent to what the results describe, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the resource ('public corpus'), and enumerates the exact metadata dimensions returned: coverage, source, freshness, and count. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_biomedical_literature or get_publication_details, which operate on searches or individual items.

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 intended-use context ('literature discovery and professional review') and an explicit exclusion ('not diagnosis or treatment'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Usage is implied by the corpus-level scope rather than directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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