Use when someone asks about Jennifer Rebholz's career progression, how her career evolved from defense to plaintiff work, or a year-by-year view of her professional experience. Returns her career timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns the timeline. It also implies the tool is person-specific (Jennifer Rebholz), which is a useful behavioral constraint beyond the annotation.
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 sentences: first addresses usage, second states what it returns. No wasted words. Front-loaded with key 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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose and usage. It explains what it returns and when to use it, leaving no gaps.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info; focusing on return value is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 returns the career timeline for Jennifer Rebholz, specifying career progression, evolution, and year-by-year view. It distinguishes from siblings like get_bio or get_summary by focusing exclusively on timeline data.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use: when asked about Jennifer Rebholz's career progression, evolution from defense to plaintiff work, or year-by-year experience. No when-not or alternatives mentioned, but the context is clear given the sibling tools.
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 targets a distinct aspect of Jennifer Rebholz's professional profile (e.g., bio, biography, career timeline, practice areas). Even the seemingly similar get_bio and get_biography are clearly differentiated by their descriptions: one returns full background, the other returns press-ready versions. An agent can easily select the correct tool based on the user's query.
All tools follow a consistent get_noun pattern (e.g., get_affiliations, get_bio, get_biography). This makes the tool surface predictable and easy to navigate for both agents and developers.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal range of 3-15 for a knowledge base, but the count is justified by the breadth of information covered (bio, career, practice areas, publications, etc.). No tool seems redundant, and the set is well-scoped to a single attorney.
The tool surface covers all major aspects of an attorney knowledge base: biography, career timeline, practice areas, credentials, affiliations, publications, speaking engagements, trials, recognition, and contact information. There are no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of information about Jennifer Rebholz.
