get_microsite_infoIdentity and links for ADHD in Children: tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship to Emora Health, and key URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds value by enumerating the exact information returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as error handling or link availability.
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 a single concise sentence that packs all relevant information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the subject and uses a clear list format.
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 parameterless read-only tool, the description fully specifies the scope of returned information. There is no output schema, but the enumeration covers all needed context, leaving no obvious gaps.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by describing the content of the output, making it clear what the agent will receive despite the empty input 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 identifies what the tool returns: identity and links for a specific microsite, listing concrete content categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on articles and crisis resources.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving microsite information but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_article or search_articles. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: citation, retrieval, crisis resources, site info, listing, and search. There is no overlapping functionality; an agent can easily select the appropriate tool for the task.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (cite_article, get_article, list_articles, search_articles, get_crisis_resources, get_microsite_info). This uniformity makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate.
With only 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a content library. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, keeping the surface area manageable for agents.
The set covers the full read-only lifecycle of the article library: listing, searching, fetching, and citing. Including crisis resources and site information rounds out the server's purpose without missing any obvious operations for the intended domain.