trends_set_pubmed_query

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which align with setting a default. The description adds useful behavioral context such as the use of PubMed syntax and the relationship to trends_briefing, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences plus an example, with no unnecessary words. Every part serves a purpose: setting context, providing formatting rules, and illustrating usage.

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 tool's simplicity (one string parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter format, and integration with trends_briefing. No gaps remain.

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?

The single parameter 'query' has 0% schema description coverage. However, the description fully compensates by explaining the expected PubMed syntax, including MeSH terms, tags, and an example, thus adding significant meaning beyond the type string.

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 the action (Set), the resource (default PubMed query), and the context (used by trends_briefing when no topic is provided). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trends_set_arxiv_categories by specifying the PubMed domain.

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 explains when to use this tool (for setting the default query for trends_briefing) and provides syntax guidance and an example. It lacks an explicit when-not statement, but the context is clear.

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