Search a medical knowledge base to retrieve accurate skin health education, including skin condition details, ABCDE criteria, and prevention tips.
Search the medical knowledge base for skin health information. Use this to provide accurate educational content about skin conditions, ABCDE criteria, and prevention tips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g., 'asymmetry', 'melanoma', 'sunscreen') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate read-only intent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the subject matter — it doesn't mention result formats, ordering, or limits. 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 short sentences, front-loaded with action and domain, examples included. No dead weight.
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?
This is a simple read-only search with one well-described parameter and no output schema; the description states intended use (educational content for skin conditions) and scope, which is sufficient for an agent to pick it correctly. Slight ambiguity vs 'search_medical_concepts' but the skin-health qualifier resolves it.
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 covers the only parameter with a description and examples (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource (medical knowledge base for skin health information) with concrete examples (ABCDE criteria, prevention tips). The 'skin health' scope helps distinguish it from the sibling search_medical_concepts, though it does not explicitly name competitors.
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?
States a clear use case: to provide accurate educational content about skin conditions and related criteria. It doesn't explicitly state when to use search_medical_concepts or other alternatives, but the skin-specific context makes the intended use evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.