lookup_mesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a basic lookup action without disclosing any behavioral details like authentication requirements, return format limitations, or query behavior (e.g., exact vs fuzzy matching). This is insufficient for transparent behavioral understanding.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is efficiently front-loaded with no wasted words, earning a high score.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description lacks contextual guidance on when to use it and what behavioral caveats exist. Given no annotations and minimal description, the overall context is incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool appropriately.

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 schema covers 0% of parameters in descriptions. The description only hints at 'a biomedical term,' which corresponds to the 'term' parameter, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the expected input format. Given the zero schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Lookup') with a clear resource ('MeSH descriptors') and input ('a biomedical term'). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_literature and resolve_identifiers, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention relationships to sibling tools or any exclusions, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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