MeSH Tree Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining how MeSH tree numbers represent hierarchical paths with a concrete example (C14.280.647), which helps the agent understand the nature of the output.

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 and well-structured, leading with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of use cases, and a brief explanatory sentence about tree numbers. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the domain concept (tree numbers), gives an example, and lists practical use cases, making it complete for an agent to effectively use the tool.

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 input schema already provides full parameter documentation (100% coverage) with the description 'MeSH Descriptor ID (e.g., D015242, D003920)'. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already includes, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tree hierarchy location(s) for a MeSH descriptor.' It is specific, uses a clear verb, and differentiates from sibling tools like mesh_search and mesh_descriptor by focusing solely on tree hierarchy locations.

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 explicit use cases ('See where a term fits in the MeSH hierarchy,' 'Understand broader/narrower relationships,' 'Find related terms in the same branch'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, relying on the sibling list for differentiation.

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