Nih Find Publications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain behavior beyond the annotations: results are PMIDs only, and 'publication linkage may lag behind award dates' — a real caveat an agent should know before interpreting sparse results.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, then return value and search keys, then the caveat. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 5-parameter, all-optional search tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description says everything needed: what it returns, the three search dimensions, the downstream handoff to PubMed, and the data-lag caveat. Return-value and pagination details are appropriately delegated to the schema.

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, but the description adds framing the schema lacks: the reverse-lookup purpose of pmids ('find which grants funded a known publication') and the worked example/wildcard note for core_project_nums. It enriches meaning rather than just restating fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find publications linked to NIH-funded projects') and pins down the output (PubMed IDs/PMIDs). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools nih_search_projects and nih_get_project, which operate on projects rather than publications.

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?

Explains the accepted search keys (core project number, application ID, or PubMed ID) and tells the agent to pass PMIDs on to PubMed APIs for citation details. It gives clear context for use but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling project tools or note exclusion conditions.

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