get_articleFetch a single article from Psychiatry for Teens by slug. Returns title, body content, author, clinical reviewer, citations, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds return-value context (title, body, author, etc.) that is not in the annotations or schema, providing useful behavioral information beyond what is structured.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a concise list of return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description captures the essential invocation details and return values. It lacks error handling or slug format specifics, but these are not critical given the low complexity.
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 schema already documents the slug parameter with a description ('Article slug'), and the description's 'by slug' adds domain context but no format or syntax details. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a single article from Psychiatry for Teens' with the method 'by slug'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles and search_articles, which operate over multiple articles.
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 is clear: it fetches a specific article by slug, implying it's for retrieving a known article. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.
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: article discovery (list, search), retrieval (get), citation (cite), site identity (microsite info), and crisis support. No two tools overlap, and the descriptions reinforce their uniqueness.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., cite_article, list_articles, get_crisis_resources). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only article library. It covers discovery, retrieval, citation, site context, and crisis support without unnecessary bloat.
The domain is fully covered: users can search, list, retrieve full articles, generate citations, access site information, and get crisis resources. No critical operations are missing, and the set forms a complete workflow.