get_compound_literature

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions using NCBI's curated links and the limit range (1-100), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The basic safety profile is implied but not explicitly stated.

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: three sentences for the main purpose, followed by brief parameter and return descriptions. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 (2 params, output schema exists), the description sufficiently explains inputs, outputs, and behavior. It lacks mention of pagination or potential API limitations but is adequate for a straightforward literature retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'cid' as 'PubChem Compound ID' and 'limit' as 'Maximum PubMed IDs to return (1-100).' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though the default value (20) from the schema is not mentioned in the description.

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 'Get PubMed articles linked to a compound,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_gene_literature' (which targets genes) and 'get_compound_details' (which gets compound information, not literature).

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 implies usage for retrieving compound-linked PubMed articles but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_gene_literature) or when not to use it.

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