search_pubmed

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only operation, no authentication, NCBI E-utilities API with rate limit, max 10 results, no pagination, and empty result message. This is thorough and adds significant value beyond structured fields.

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 concise paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by behavioral traits and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavioral traits, rate limits, result limits, empty result handling, and usage contexts. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. It is complete for a simple tool with two parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema for the two parameters (query and max_results). It restates the max_results limit but provides no new semantic detail.

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 it searches PubMed for peer-reviewed biomedical literature, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (clinical trials, ISRCTN) by listing use cases like research papers and drug mechanisms.

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 includes a 'Use for' list that implies contexts (research papers, drug mechanisms, clinical outcomes, etc.), but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. The sibling context provides implicit guidance, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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