search_pubmed

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

Annotations already signal a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful information by listing the returned article summary fields (PMIDs, titles, authors, journals, DOIs), but does not disclose potential caveats such as incomplete coverage or API limitations. It does not contradict 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. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the output summary is stated efficiently.

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 read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose, the database, and the expected output fields despite having no output schema. It is slightly incomplete only in not directing the agent toward sibling tools, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description does not add meaning to parameters like sort, dateFrom, dateTo, or maxResults beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('PubMed'), domain ('biomedical literature'), and summarizes the return payload. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like search_europepmc by the explicit resource name, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus the siblings, especially search_europepmc or get_full_text. The agent must infer from the name and schema that this is the PubMed-focused search and not a full-text or abstract-specific tool.

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