Get publication details by PMID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the record being 'complete' and 'public' and about the intended professional-review use case, but it does not add deeper behavioral details such as error handling or corpus freshness. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second adds a relevant use/limitation note. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It clarifies the workflow position ('after search'), the scope ('complete public bibliographic record'), and the intended use, leaving no material gap for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 fully documents the pmid parameter, including its format and meaning, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a concrete resource ('one complete public bibliographic record'), and a precise lookup key ('by PMID'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling search and neighborhood tools by focusing on a single-record lookup.

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 phrase 'after search' gives clear sequencing context: this tool is a follow-up to a search step, likely search_biomedical_literature. The disclaimer that results are not for diagnosis or treatment provides a relevant when-not-to-use boundary, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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