mesh_descriptor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds that it returns scope notes and tree numbers, but this is behavioral context that complements the annotations without overwhelming detail.

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 with a clear first sentence followed by bullet points. Every sentence adds value: the opening defines the action, and the bullets list specific use cases. No redundant information.

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 that there is only one simple parameter, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description sufficiently tells what information the tool returns. No additional detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the mesh_id parameter, including pattern and description. The description provides an example ID (D015242 for Ofloxacin), adding context beyond the schema by showing a concrete usage scenario.

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 explicitly states the tool gets detailed information about a MeSH descriptor by ID, with specific examples of what it returns (scope note, tree numbers, related concepts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mesh_search (search by query) and mesh_tree (navigate hierarchy).

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 includes bullet points on when to use the tool (e.g., get full definition, view tree numbers). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context suggests it is for specific ID lookup, which is clear enough for most use cases.

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