Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pubmed_articlesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions accessing 'over 35 million citations' and downloading PDFs 'when available,' it lacks critical behavioral information such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response formats, or whether operations are read-only or mutative. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: it starts with the unified purpose, adds context about the database, and ends with usage instructions. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence about '35 million citations' could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, multiple operations) and lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., search results format, metadata structure, PDF handling), behavioral constraints, or error scenarios. For a multi-function tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more operational context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by mentioning the 'method parameter' and listing the four operation types, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a 'unified tool for PubMed operations' that can 'search biomedical literature, retrieve article metadata, and download PDFs.' It specifies the resource ('PubMed articles') and multiple verbs, but since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives. The description goes beyond a tautology by explaining the scope and database size.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use the method parameter to specify the operation type' and listing the four available methods. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose one method over another (e.g., when to use search_keywords vs search_advanced) or mention any prerequisites or constraints. With no sibling tools, alternative guidance isn't needed.

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