Search MeSH

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'content is never machine-translated' and results include MeSH IDs and labels, which are behavioral nuances not fully covered by 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 at five sentences, with a clear structure: summary line, bulleted use cases, a language nuance note, and a return statement. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation. The description covers core use cases, translation behavior, and matching context, making it fully sufficient for a search tool with strong annotations and schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enriches the `language` parameter by explicitly stating it returns NLM's official translations and never machine-translates, and gives an example ('pt' for Portuguese). This adds semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Search for MeSH descriptors') and immediately lists concrete use cases: indexing medical literature, PubMed searches, and finding controlled vocabulary terms. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like icd11_search or loinc_search.

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' bullet list explicitly frames the intended contexts (indexing, PubMed subject headings, controlled vocabulary). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases make it evident when this tool is appropriate relative to sibling search tools.

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