mesh_term_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions the hierarchical nature of MeSH, hinting at hierarchical expansion but not disclosing default behaviors like explode=true, qualifier handling, or date-range filtering. The description does not mention output format, pagination, or any side effects.

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 brief and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds useful background on MeSH but could be integrated or shortened; overall it remains concise and readable.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to specify the searchable database, result types, or any limitations. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description lacks critical contextual information for an agent to confidently select and 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 covers most parameters with descriptions (71% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no direct parameter details, though the hierarchical indexing note contextualizes search_mode and explode. This does not raise the score above the schema baseline.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('MeSH controlled vocabulary terms'), which distinguishes it from general search tools like global_search or pubmed_search. However, it does not specify the underlying corpus being searched (e.g., PubMed vs PMC), leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies that MeSH is valuable for standardized retrieval across different terminologies, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, making the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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