search_articlesSearch Therapy for 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 readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds the scope ('editorial corpus') and return fields, but does not disclose further behavioral traits like pagination behavior or ordering. It provides some value beyond annotations but is not rich.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The description quickly communicates the main function and return fields, efficiently using 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 without an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return fields. It lacks only explicit usage guidance against siblings and details like sorting, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.
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's function: searching the editorial corpus by query and returning specific fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_articles, relying instead on the verb 'search' to imply differentiation.
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 free-text searching, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over list_articles or get_article, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
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 serves a distinct purpose: fetching a single article, listing articles, searching, citing, retrieving crisis resources, and getting site info. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (cite_article, get_article, list_articles, search_articles, etc.). The verbs accurately describe the action and the nouns are clear.
Six tools is appropriate for a read-only content library. Each tool covers a necessary functionality (list, search, get, cite, plus safety and context) without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool surface fully covers the core domain of accessing articles: listing, searching, retrieving, and citing. The addition of crisis resources and microsite info completes the lifecycle for a safe, well-rounded library. No obvious gaps.