nih_search_publications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reinforce that. It adds that the tool returns PMID and linked project number, which is useful but does not cover pagination or other behaviors. With annotations bearing the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing the search methods and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return fields. It could mention pagination behavior (e.g., limit and offset), but the complexity is low, and the description is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description repeats that searches are by PMIDs, application IDs, or core project numbers, but does not provide additional context beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high 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 it searches for publications linked to NIH-funded projects and specifies three search methods (PMIDs, application IDs, core project numbers). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool nih_search_projects, which could cause confusion for an AI agent deciding which tool to use.

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 usage by listing acceptable inputs, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when a broader project search would be more appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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