pubmed_cross_reference

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 doesn't mention that the tool is likely a read-only lookup, what the output looks like, whether it performs network calls, or any rate limits. The description only states the high-level action without explaining behavior beyond the literal phrase.

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 extremely brief—a single sentence—which is concise, but it's under-specified. It doesn't use the space to add useful structure or detail. While there is no fluff, the content is too thin to deserve a higher score.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values or how the tool differs from siblings. The reference_type enum is left unexplained, and the description doesn't mention the types of cross-referencing (citing, cited, similar, reviews). For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for effective selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics; it doesn't explain the meaning of pmid, max_results, or reference_type. The schema already documents these, so the description adds no extra value here.

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 states '交叉引用相关文献' (cross-reference related literature), which is a verb+resource pairing but remains vague about the exact operation. It doesn't specify that it works via a PMID or that it retrieves citing/cited/similar articles, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like pubmed_search or pubmed_get_details. The mention of fact-checking and deep analysis gives a use case but not operational clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says it's for fact-checking and deep analysis, but this is too generic to help an agent decide between pubmed_search, pubmed_get_details, or pubmed_cross_reference. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are provided.

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