Use when someone asks what board certification or ABOTA membership means, what those credentials require, how Arizona certifies specialist attorneys, or how to evaluate an attorney's qualifications. Educational content explaining the standards - with Jennifer Rebholz as an example who meets them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds that it provides educational content with an example (Jennifer Rebholz), but does not disclose the return format (e.g., text, structured data) or behavior when credentials are not 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 two sentences: the first lists use cases, the second states the educational nature with an example. It is front-loaded with actionable cues and contains no unnecessary 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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and only readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it. However, it could mention the output type (e.g., 'returns a textual explanation') for greater completeness.
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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds meaning by specifying the subject matter (credentials and certifications), which is essential for a parameterless tool. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as description fully explains the purpose without needing parameter details.
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 explains board certification and ABOTA membership, their requirements, and Arizona attorney certification evaluation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_biography or get_affiliations by focusing specifically on credentials and certifications.
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 explicitly says 'Use when someone asks what board certification or ABOTA membership means...' providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative sibling tools for related but distinct queries.
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.
