download_pubmed

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Returns: str: Message indicating that direct PDF download is not supported.' This reveals that the tool may not actually download PDFs but instead returns a message about lack of support, which is crucial context not covered by annotations (none provided). However, it doesn't explain why direct download isn't supported, potential workarounds, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured Arg/Return sections. There is no wasted text, but the structure could be more integrated (e.g., combining purpose with behavioral disclosure). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly streamlined.

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 the tool's complexity (attempting downloads with potential limitations), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return message about unsupported downloads, which is helpful, but doesn't cover error cases, permissions, or how it differs from other download tools. The output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), so describing return values isn't needed, but more behavioral context is warranted for a tool with such a significant caveat.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics: 'paper_id: PubMed ID (PMID)' and 'save_path: Directory to save the PDF (default: './downloads').' This clarifies what the parameters represent, but doesn't provide format details (e.g., PMID structure, path validation) or explain the save_path's relevance given the tool's limited functionality. The value added is minimal but addresses the bare essentials.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Attempt to download PDF of a PubMed paper.' It specifies the verb ('download'), resource ('PDF of a PubMed paper'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_pubmed_paper' by focusing on PDF download rather than reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other download tools like 'download_scihub' or 'download_with_fallback' in terms of when to choose this specific PubMed download method.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'download_scihub', 'download_with_fallback', 'read_pubmed_paper'), there is no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative advantages. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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