Pubmed Lookup Mesh

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns specific record fields, which is already implied by the output schema. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.

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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key outputs. No redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema and informative annotations, the description provides enough context for an AI agent to understand the tool's function and return value. It could mention the controlled vocabulary aspect more explicitly, but it is largely complete.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 it searches and explores MeSH vocabulary and returns specific record types (descriptor records with tree numbers, scope notes, entry terms). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pubmed_search_articles (article search) or pubmed_lookup_citation (citation lookup).

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 describes what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose this over pubmed_search_articles). No 'when not to use' or context for selection among siblings.

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