search_pubmed

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool performs search and retrieves abstracts, implying a read operation. However, it does not detail whether results include full abstracts inline, how PMC integration works, or any potential side effects. The description is moderately transparent but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's primary function and distinguishing features, earning its place without fluff.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate sibling overlap, the description is somewhat incomplete. It fails to specify the output format, pagination behavior, or how 'complete abstract retrieval' is achieved. While it touches on key features, more context is needed for full clarity.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds general context ('complete abstract retrieval and PMC integration') but does not augment parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Given full coverage, baseline 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 identifies the tool as a PubMed search enhanced with complete abstract retrieval and PMC integration. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_pmc_fulltext' (which searches PMC full text) and 'retrieve_pubmed_results' (which may just fetch results). However, 'Enhanced' is slightly vague and the scope of 'complete abstract retrieval' is not fully elaborated.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'get_full_abstract', 'search_pmc_fulltext'). The description mentions features but does not indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred or when alternatives are more appropriate.

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