search_and_fetch_pubmed

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says it returns ranked summaries, but omits details like ranking algorithm, potential rate limits, or error handling (e.g., empty results).

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 concise sentence, but it is too brief. It lacks structure such as separate sections for purpose, usage, and parameters. While not verbose, it is under-specified.

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 combines multiple sub-tasks and has an output schema, but the description does not explain the output format or ranking criteria. It is incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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 0%. The description does not add any meaning to parameters 'clinical_question', 'filters', or 'max_results' beyond their names. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters.

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 function: building a query, searching PubMed, fetching articles, and returning ranked summaries. It distinguishes from simpler siblings like 'search_pubmed' (just search) and 'fetch_pubmed_articles' (just fetch).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_clinical_query' or 'rank_articles'. The description implies it combines steps, but does not explicitly state that it should be used when all steps are needed, nor does it mention limitations.

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