Pubmed Lookup Mesh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the exact output format: descriptor records with tree numbers, scope notes, and entry terms. This provides behavioral context beyond the 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 consists of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence is necessary, with no redundant or extraneous 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?

For a simple lookup tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers core behavior and output. However, it could mention that this tool is useful for obtaining MeSH terms to supplement article searches, but this is not a critical gap.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for query, maxResults, and includeDetails. Thus baseline score 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 the tool searches and explores the MeSH controlled vocabulary, specifying that it returns descriptor records with tree numbers, scope notes, and entry terms. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pubmed_search_articles and pubmed_lookup_citation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It lacks any comparative context or exclusions, which would help an AI agent decide between this and other tools like pubmed_search_articles or pubmed_lookup_citation.

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