get_microsite_infoIdentity and links for Anxiety in Teens: 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing what information will be returned (tagline, audience, sponsor relationship, URLs). No contradiction found.
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, well-structured sentence with a clear list of contents. It is front-loaded and every word adds value, with no irrelevant information.
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 read-only metadata getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers expected return content. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it will receive, and sibling context clarifies scope.
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 description does not need to explain parameter syntax or meaning. Baseline 4 applies since there is no parameter burden.
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 tool as returning identity and links for the 'Anxiety in Teens' microsite, specifying exact content elements. This distinguishes it from siblings that handle 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?
Usage is implied by the sibling tool names and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not state exclusions or provide when-to-use scenarios.
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: getting an article, searching/listings, citing, crisis resources, and site info. No overlap or confusion between them.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern (cite_, get_, list_, search_), making the API predictable and easy to understand.
Six tools is well-scoped for a content library server, covering the essential operations without bloat or missing core functionality.
The tool set covers the major article workflows: discovery (list/search), retrieval (get), citation, and additional context resources. No critical gaps for a read-only library.