nih_search_publications

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

Annotations already carry the read-only, non-destructive, idempotent safety profile. The description adds the return behavior ('Returns PMID and linked project number') but does not go beyond that; no contradiction with the annotations.

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 no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the identifier types and return contract, making it easy for an agent to process.

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?

It is adequate for a simple read-only search tool, and it names the return fields even though there is no output schema. However, all parameters are optional and the description does not clarify whether at least one identifier must be supplied or whether results are a list, which could matter at invocation time.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description, so this dimension is a baseline 3. The description paraphrases the allowed identifier types but does not clarify whether parameters may be combined or whether at least one filter is required.

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 a specific action and resource ('Search for publications linked to NIH-funded projects') and enumerates the key search inputs (PMIDs, application IDs, core project numbers). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling nih_search_projects.

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 gives a clear context: it is the tool to use when searching for NIH-tied publications by identifiers. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the publication-focused wording provides enough directional guidance.

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