mesh_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description needs only add context. It states that the tool returns matching descriptors with MeSH IDs and labels, which is consistent and adds useful behavioral insight without contradicting 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 extremely concise: a single opening line plus three bullet points and a closing sentence. Every sentence is necessary and valuable, with no wasted words.

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, combined with the comprehensive schema (100% coverage) and full annotations, provides a complete understanding of the tool's functionality and behavior. The output schema presumably supplements return value details, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all 4 parameters are already well-described in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond the overarching purpose, so a baseline of 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 'Search for MeSH descriptors' and lists specific use cases (indexing medical literature, subject headings for PubMed, controlled vocabulary terms). It differentiates from siblings like 'mesh_descriptor', 'mesh_qualifiers', and 'mesh_tree' by focusing on general search functionality.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool to:' followed by three relevant scenarios, providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or direct users to alternative tools among the many siblings.

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