search_articlesSearch Psychiatry for Children's editorial corpus by query. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL for matching articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Alternate parameter name for `query`. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text search query. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context by specifying the corpus scope and return format. No contradictions or additional behavioral notes (e.g., auth, rate limits) are present, but the read-only nature is clearly implied.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action, target, and return fields without wasted words.
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 search tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description lists the return fields, making it complete enough for an agent. Minor gaps like pagination or default limits are covered by the schema.
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 description coverage is 100% for all parameters (query, q, limit), and the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by query.' The schema fully documents parameter details, so the description provides no additional value.
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 states the tool searches a specific corpus ('Psychiatry for Children's editorial corpus') and lists the return fields (title, slug, summary, URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles or get_article.
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 usage (search by query) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools exist for listing or fetching specific articles, but no 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 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.