search_articlesSearch ADHD in Teens'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?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the return value details (title, slug, summary, URL), which is valuable because there is no output schema. It does not disclose sorting, pagination, or any edge cases, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar.
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 front-loads the tool's purpose and return values. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool is a simple read-only search with a rich schema and few parameters. The description covers the return fields, which is important without an output schema. It lacks details about sorting or pagination, but those are not critical for a straightforward search tool.
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%, with each parameter (q, limit, query) already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Search ADHD in Teens's editorial corpus by query', which uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_articles by highlighting the query-based mechanism. It also lists return fields (title, slug, summary, URL), further clarifying the tool's purpose.
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 when a query-based search is needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance or exclusions. With siblings like list_articles, the intended differentiation is evident but not explicitly stated.
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: fetching, listing, searching, citing, crisis resources, and site info. No overlap between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, using verbs like get, list, search, cite, and clear nouns. No mixed naming conventions.
6 tools is well-scoped for an article library server, covering core operations without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full read-only lifecycle: retrieve single, list all, search, cite, plus essential auxiliary info. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.