MeSH Allowable Qualifiers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the example and the concept that qualifiers refine descriptors, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error handling. This is sufficient given the annotation coverage, but not exceptional.

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 efficient: a single opening sentence, a bullet list of use cases, and a one-line example. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, with no wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and gives a concrete example. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The annotations provide safety context. The description is complete for its complexity.

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 description for 'mesh_id' is 100% coverage, including pattern and example. The tool description mentions 'MeSH descriptor' and provides an example, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already captures. 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 function: 'Get allowed qualifiers (subheadings) for a MeSH descriptor.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like mesh_descriptor or mesh_tree, which have different purposes. The example 'Diabetes Mellitus/drug therapy' further clarifies the scope.

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 bullet-point list explicitly says when to use this tool: to find combinable qualifiers, build precise search queries, and understand specifiable aspects. It provides clear context, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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