pubmed_paper_summary_lookup_by_pmids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses error handling (invalid PMIDs returned as per-item error fields), the batch limit (max 200, excess truncated), and performance characteristics (faster than a full fetch). It also lists the additional fields it provides.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavioral details. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, performance, fields included, error behavior, and input limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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. It clarifies the pmids parameter is a batch, enforces a maximum of 200 with truncation, and explains how invalid IDs are handled. This adds meaning beyond the bare array-of-strings 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 the action ('Look up lightweight PubMed metadata') and the resource (batch of PMIDs via ESummary). It explicitly differentiates from the search tool by mentioning fields it lacks (pmcid, pubstatus, pmcrefcount, elocationid), making its role unambiguous among the sibling tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have PMIDs and need lightweight metadata, especially fields the search tool lacks, and it notes it's faster than a full fetch. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the mention of 'the search tool' implies the distinction.

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