pubmed_quick_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does state that results are '精简' (concise) and response speed is optimized, indicating reduced output detail for faster performance. However, it does not specify what exactly is omitted from the results, nor does it mention pagination, error behavior, or any rate limits. This vagueness leaves the agent uncertain about the actual output format.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that begins with the core action ('快速搜索') followed by the key result characteristics. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, no output schema), and the description conveys the essential purpose of a fast, concise search. However, the ambiguous meaning of '精简结果' and the absence of information about how this differs from the sibling 'pubmed_search' leaves the description incomplete for an agent trying to select the right tool. It lacks explicit details on return structure or any limitations, though the tool's simplicity partially mitigates this.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions ('搜索查询' for query and '最大返回结果数量' for max_results), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the schema is the primary source of meaning. As per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('搜索') and resource ('PubMed文献'), and adds the qualifiers '快速' (quick) and '返回精简结果' (returns concise results), showing it performs a fast, simplified search. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'pubmed_search', which likely offers more comprehensive search functionality, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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 '快速搜索' implies it is intended for rapid, lightweight searches, and '优化响应速度' suggests a trade-off of comprehensiveness for speed. This gives implied guidance on when to use it (when speed is prioritized), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as pubmed_search or pubmed_get_details, leaving the usage decision to the agent's inference.

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