mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it states data is live from NCBI at query time, retmax defaults to 5 with a cap of 20, exact matches rank to the top, narrower terms cap at 10, historical predecessors may be incomplete, and it warns on phrasesnotfound. These are concrete behavioral traits beyond the schema that an agent could not otherwise infer.

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 content is front-loaded: the first clause names the resource and its returnable fields, then constraints and caveats follow. It is dense but every sentence carries information, though the multi-clause lines are somewhat packed and could be split for scanability.

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 3-parameter tool that already has an output schema, the description covers the crucial behaviors: data liveness, retmax limits, ranking, truncation caps, and warning conditions. The main gap is that as_json (a return-format toggle) is never mentioned, which an agent might otherwise misuse.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains retmax thoroughly (default 5, max 20, ranking behavior) but says nothing about as_json or the term parameter's semantics, leaving one of three parameters and the return-format toggle entirely undocumented. Partial compensation warrants a mid score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource (查 MeSH 主题词表) and enumerates the exact content returned: descriptors, entry terms, tree numbers, broader/narrower terms, previous indexing, scope notes, introduction year. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search or fetch_abstracts, which handle literature rather than the thesaurus.

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?

It gives substantive usage context: previous-indexing terms are for expanding old indexing terms (not guaranteed complete), narrower terms help decide whether to expand, and a missing descriptor does not mean the topic has no literature. It does not name an alternative sibling tool or state an explicit 'use this instead of X' rule, so it falls just short of a 5.

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