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 tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as side effects or permissions, but it does not contradict annotations.

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 (5 lines), front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bullet points for clarity. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description outlines what information the tool returns (scope note, tree numbers, synonyms), which complements the output schema. It does not cover edge cases or error handling, but given the annotations (openWorldHint) and low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds marginal value by providing an example mesh_id format, but the schema already documents defaults (e.g., language= en). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a MeSH descriptor by ID.' It lists specific uses like scope note, tree numbers, and synonyms, and the name 'mesh_descriptor' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'mesh_search' and 'mesh_tree'.

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 provides clear usage context with bullet points on when to use (e.g., getting full definition, viewing hierarchy). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative sibling tools, so it is not a 5.

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