pubmed_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states the returned fields and the PubMed query syntax behavior, but does not disclose sorting behavior, result limits, or error/rate-limit traits. This is adequate but incomplete for a search tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful, concrete query example. The Chinese translation largely duplicates the English content, adding redundancy, but the overall structure remains readable and compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not required from the description. The core term behavior and use cases are covered, but the missing semantics for 'sort_by' and 'max_results' leave the agent with incomplete guidance for optional parameters. The defaults make a basic call feasible, yet the description is not fully complete.

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 for all parameters. It gives meaningful syntax guidance for the only required parameter 'term' (e.g., 'BRCA1 AND breast cancer[Title]'), but says nothing about 'sort_by' or 'max_results' beyond what the schema's titles/defaults imply. Optional parameters are effectively left undocumented.

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 ('Search') and a clearly identified resource ('PubMed biomedical literature'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (title/authors/journal/year/PMID/DOI). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like europepmc_search, though naming PubMed provides reasonable differentiation.

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?

Usage context is provided through explicit use cases (literature review, grant proposals, evidence-based search) and a query syntax example. However, there is no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to sibling search tools like europepmc_search.

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