find_couples_therapistFind the appropriate Empathi therapy or coaching option based on your US state and relationship concern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | US two-letter state code | |
| concern | No | The relationship issue |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool selects or recommends an option based on inputs, which is useful, but it does not disclose return shape, error behavior, or what happens with unsupported or missing inputs. No contradiction with annotations.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant or wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse.
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 two-parameter read-only tool, this is mostly adequate, but with no output schema the description should say a little more about what the returned 'option' looks like. The mismatch between the description implying both state and concern are needed and the schema listing zero required parameters is also left unaddressed.
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 input schema already documents both parameters (state and concern) with 100% coverage and includes validation constraints. The description only restates 'state and relationship concern' and adds no new format, default, or dependency semantics beyond the schema.
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 names a specific action ('Find') and a concrete resource ('Empathi therapy or coaching option'), with clear selection inputs (US state, relationship concern). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_relationship_expert or get_relationship_assessment, even without naming them explicitly.
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 the right context: use it when the user needs an Empathi therapy/coaching match and provides a state and concern. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference alternative sibling tools, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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 clearly distinct purpose: general Q&A, finding a therapist, taking an assessment, naming conflict patterns, providing immediate repair steps, and offering wisdom score insights. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can select the right tool without ambiguity.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_, find_, get_, name_, repair_, wisdom_score_preview). The verbs are varied but each clearly indicates the action, and the pattern is uniform across the set.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a relationship expert domain. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of relationship guidance without excess or redundancy, making the count appropriate for both usability and maintainability.
The tool surface covers core relationship needs: general advice, therapist matching, assessment, conflict analysis, immediate repair, and personalized insight. The only minor gap is the lack of a tool for scheduling sessions or accessing broader educational resources, but the existing set addresses the primary lifecycle without significant dead ends.