pubmed_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true. The description adds behavioral context: query construction rules, the days filter applies to PDat field, and response_format options. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second provides advanced usage details. No redundant information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (though not shown) and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential query syntax. It does not explain max_results default or response_format details, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query parameter thoroughly (plain keywords, MeSH, field tags) and days parameter (PDat filter). However, max_results and response_format are not mentioned in the description, leaving gaps.

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 'Search PubMed for biomedical publications,' specifying the verb (search) and resource (PubMed). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like arxiv_search or github_search by targeting PubMed specifically.

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?

Provides guidance on plain keywords vs advanced MeSH/field tag queries, combination with AND/OR, and the days filter. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and no sibling tools overlap with PubMed.

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