get_microsite_infoIdentity and links for Anxiety 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 indicates a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the types of information returned (tagline, audience, sponsor relationship, etc.), which is contextual. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors such as response format, potential exceptions, or data freshness, so it does not go beyond what the annotation and basic intent convey.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the identity of the microsite and packs all key content points without fluff. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool returns.
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, parameterless tool, the description fully enumerates the expected return content: tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship, and key URLs. Since there is no output schema, this list serves as the primary explanation of the tool's output, and it is sufficient. The readOnly annotation and sibling context complete the picture.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly includes no parameter details, and the schema has 100% coverage (vacuously). There is nothing to add about parameter semantics.
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 provides: identity and links for the 'Anxiety in Children' microsite, enumerating specific content like tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship, and URLs. This is a specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with articles or 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 usage context is implied by the content: use this tool when you need identity and link information about the microsite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor comparison with siblings such as get_article or get_crisis_resources.
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 clear, distinct purpose: fetching a single article, listing articles, searching articles, citing, crisis resources, and site info. No two tools could be easily confused, even list and search are differentiated by query vs. pagination.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (cite_article, get_article, list_articles, search_articles, etc.). The convention is uniform and predictable.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for an article library, covering reading, searching, listing, citing, plus crisis and site info. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core library workflow: discover (list/search), access (get), cite, and contextual info (microsite). The inclusion of crisis resources is a thoughtful addition for the domain. No obvious gaps for a read-only content library.