library

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it supports three citation styles, but this is also present in the schema enum. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or prerequisites, though the simple read-only nature makes this acceptable.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity, the readOnlyHint annotation, and fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. The return type (a formatted citation string) is implied by 'formatted citation', and no output schema is needed for such a straightforward tool.

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 descriptions for both slug and format, including the enum and default. The description's mention of AMA, APA, and Chicago duplicates schema info. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a formatted citation for a Psychiatry for Kids article', distinguishing it from siblings like get_article or list_articles. The specific output type and domain context make the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use it: when a formatted citation is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so distinct that context is clear. No direct comparison with sibling tools, so not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by detailing the return payload (title, body, author, reviewer, citations, metadata) and scoping to a single article, which helps the agent understand what to expect. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and target; the second lists the return fields. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter fetch tool, the description fully explains what it does and what it returns. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly listing the return fields. No gaps are apparent.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'slug', which is described as 'Article slug.' The description repeats the 'by slug' concept but adds no extra format, pattern, or examples. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches a single article by slug, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('article from Psychiatry for Kids'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles and search_articles, which operate on collections or queries.

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 usage: use when you have a specific slug to retrieve an article, as opposed to listing or searching. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given sibling names, the intended usage is inferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the payload is 'canonical' and specifying the trigger timing. It doesn't describe exact payload contents, but the name and context suffice for this simple read-only tool.

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, front-loaded with the action. 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context. Nothing is missing.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are fully handled. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; no additional description is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a precise resource ('canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the article-focused sibling tools.

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 states when to use: 'Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' This provides clear, actionable usage context and implicitly excludes non-crisis situations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context about the returned content (tagline, audience, publisher, etc.). It does not describe the return format or any behavioral caveats, but for a simple no-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and then enumerates its contents. Every word contributes specific value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only info tool, the description sufficiently enumerates the returned information and distinguishes the tool from siblings. It could mention the output shape (e.g., JSON), but the absence is not a significant gap 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?

There are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description correctly implies the tool takes no input. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 identity and links for a specific resource (Psychiatry for Kids), listing exact content such as tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship, and URLs. This specific scope immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with articles or crisis resources.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need microsite identity and links. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are so different (article retrieval, crisis resources) that the intended usage is reasonably unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers the read-only safety aspect. The description adds meaningful context about pagination and the specific fields returned, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as default ordering, rate limits, or how pagination behaves at the end of the list. This is adequate but 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, followed by the return payload. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 paginated list tool with a read-only annotation and full parameter schema coverage, the description is complete. It states the resource, pagination behavior, and return fields, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both page and limit fully described in the schema. The description mentions 'Paginated' which loosely relates to these parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Paginated list of articles') and identifies the resource ('articles from Psychiatry for Kids'). It also notes the returned fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article and search_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 description implies this is the tool for paginated listing of all articles, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus search_articles or get_article. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating what the response contains (title, slug, summary, URL) and scoping the search to the editorial corpus. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and provides necessary return information without waste. Every word earns its place.

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, the description is complete: it states the action, scope, and return fields. The schema covers parameters, and annotations cover safety. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but these are not required for a straightforward query-based search.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond 'by query,' which is already covered by the schema descriptions for 'query' and 'q.' It does not explain limit behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Psychiatry for Kids's editorial corpus'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_articles or get_article. It also specifies the return fields (title, slug, summary, URL), which further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need to find matching articles by query. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_articles or get_article, but the context is obvious. No exclusions are stated, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.