get_microsite_infoIdentity and links for Psychiatry for Kids: tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship to Emora Health, and key URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a full article, listing articles, searching, citing, retrieving site info, and providing crisis resources. No two tools overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily select the correct one.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_article, list_articles, search_articles). The verbs and nouns are predictable, making the set easy to understand and navigate.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a focused article library. Each tool earns its place, covering core operations without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The set covers article retrieval, discovery (list/search), citation, site identity, and crisis resources. For a public-facing read-only library, this is a complete surface with no obvious gaps or dead ends.