search_mesh_descriptor

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

Describes error behavior: returns 'Error:' prefix on HTTP failure instead of raising. This is critical for safe invocation. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Could mention other traits like pagination or rate limits, but for a search tool this is sufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then covers return format and error handling. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With 8 optional parameters and low schema coverage, more detail on parameter interplay or example usage would help. However, output schema exists and error handling is explained, so it is minimally adequate.

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 low (25%); only 'limit' and 'query' have descriptions. Description adds no explanations for the 8 parameters, including aliases. It does not clarify usage of 'name', 'term', etc. beyond what is already in 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?

Description clearly states 'Search for MeSH ID by query', specifying verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that search other entities (e.g., ChEMBL, UniProt) but does not explicitly differentiate usage.

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?

Implies usage when needing to find MeSH terms. No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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