rcsb_get_pubmed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds value by specifying the default fields (PubMed Central ID, DOI, abstract text) and the fact that `fields` is a GraphQL selection. It also provides a discovery path for valid field names. No contradictions with 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 about 70 words and well organized: a purpose sentence, a note on default fields, and a clear args list. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the structure front-loads the main action.

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 simple read-by-ID tool, this description is quite complete: it covers purpose, parameters, default fields, and how to discover custom field paths. It does not discuss error handling or output shape, but an output schema exists, so that is acceptable. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when not to use this tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates: it explains `pubmed_id` as an integer PubMed ID with an example, and `fields` as an optional GraphQL selection with an example and a pointer to rcsb_describe_data_object for verifying paths. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Fetch the PubMed record for a citation by its integer ID' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from other get_* tools by naming the PubMed record and providing an example ID. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explains the required input (pubmed_id) and optional fields, and points users to rcsb_describe_data_object for field discovery. It does not explicitly contrast with search tools, but the instruction to use an integer ID implies this tool is for known identifiers rather than searching.

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