search_mesh_descriptor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool accepts aliases for the query parameter and returns a JSON string. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description adds some context beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and is concise. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary detail without extraneous words. The alias list could be slightly more compact, but overall it is well-organized.

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 (not shown but indicated), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It does not cover edge cases or pagination, but for a straightforward search tool this is sufficient. The alias clarification is particularly helpful.

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 schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that 'query' accepts aliases (e.g., search, term, keyword), which is critical for the agent to understand that most additional parameters are redundant. It also describes the 'limit' parameter with its default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for MeSH ID by query'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools which search other databases (e.g., search_chembl_molecule, search_uniprot_entity).

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied by the name and sibling context (MeSH vs other databases), but no explicit guidance is provided.

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