get_microsite_infoIdentity and links for Psychiatry for 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 the safety profile, and the description adds useful content context by enumerating the specific fields returned (tagline, audience, sponsor relationship, etc.). It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format or error behavior, but for a simple read-only tool with no parameters, this is acceptable.
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, focused sentence that lists the key content items without any filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured for quick agent parsing.
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 tool's simplicity (0 params, read-only, no output schema), the description is fully complete for the agent's needs. It clearly states what information is available, and sibling tools cover other distinct contexts.
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 input schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description appropriately does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 the resource (Psychiatry for Children) and the specific information scope (tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship, URLs), distinguishing it from sibling article tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides', making the purpose slightly less direct than a fully verb-led description.
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 this tool is for retrieving microsite metadata and links, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest article- and crisis-related use cases, yet the description offers no direct guidance or exclusions.
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 unique purpose: citations, single article retrieval, crisis resources, site info, listing, and searching. No overlap.
All tools use consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., cite_article, list_articles, search_articles).
Six tools is well-scoped for a library server covering retrieval, search, citation, and crisis resources.
Covers core read operations (get, list, search, cite) plus crisis info, but may lack auxiliary operations like topic listing or author lookups.