get_abstract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the output behavior in detail: the abstract sections, keywords, MeSH terms, and PMC ID. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., missing abstract sections), but the key behavioral information is present.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose; the second succinctly enumerates the return fields. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by listing the key fields. It could but does not mention that metadata includes broader fields (authors, journal, date), and it doesn't describe behavior for invalid PMIDs or non-structured abstracts. However, for a simple retrieval tool, the essential invocation details are covered.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'structructured abstract' and 'abstract sections' aligns with the 'structured' parameter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full structured abstract and metadata for a PubMed article'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also lists concrete return fields (abstract sections, keywords, MeSH terms, PMC ID), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_full_text or search_pubmed.

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 context: when you have a PubMed ID and need the abstract/metadata, use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_full_text, nor does it state when not to use it. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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