pubmed_get_details

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the result includes '全文摘要和详细元数据' (full-text abstract and detailed metadata), but it doesn't clarify read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or the exact effect of include_full_text. The phrase '全文摘要' is ambiguous, adding to the lack of transparency.

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 entire description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. It contains no filler or unnecessary information.

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 simple 2-param tool with full schema coverage, the description conveys the core function but lacks details about return format, batch handling, and the meaning of 'complete literature information'. Since there is no output schema, more explicit output expectations would improve completeness.

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 schema already describes both parameters: pmids as 'PMID或PMID列表' and include_full_text as '尝试获取全文链接'. The description adds little beyond restating the tool's purpose, and it doesn't clarify how include_full_text interacts with the returned data. Thus it stays at the baseline for 100% schema 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 clearly states the tool's action: '获取指定PMID的完整文献信息' (get complete literature information for specified PMIDs). This specifies a verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from search tools like pubmed_search and summary tools like pubmed_extract_key_info.

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 implies the tool is used when you already have PMIDs and need full details, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No usage context or alternative guidance is provided.

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