MeSH Descriptor Details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds meaningful context about language handling: 'content is never machine-translated,' ensuring agents understand the official-translation limitation. This goes beyond schema information and complements the 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 compact and well-organized: main purpose first, then bulleted use cases, followed by a concrete example and language note. Every sentence contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists (which covers return structure), the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral nuances. The tool is simple and the description provides all necessary context for correct use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example ID ('D015242') and clarifying the language parameter's behavior (official translations, default en). This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 opens with 'Get detailed information about a MeSH descriptor by ID,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It further enumerates uses (scope note, tree numbers, related concepts) and provides a concrete ID example, clearly distinguishing 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 'Use this tool to' list provides clear context on when to use it (full definition, hierarchy location, synonyms). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies its role as a details endpoint. It would benefit from naming sibling tools like mesh_tree for specialized hierarchy traversal, but current guidance is adequate.

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