Devuelve los datos verificables de los profesionales del equipo (colegiación de cada uno, enfoques que declara cada profesional, modalidad) y quién realiza la valoración inicial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns verifiable data, which implies a read-only operation, but does not elaborate on authorization, performance, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich in behavioral context.
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 that conveys the tool's purpose and data content without unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects of what is returned and mentions who performs the initial assessment. It might be slightly more explicit about the format or structure of the returned data, but overall it is complete enough for a basic data retrieval 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by detailing the content of the returned data, which is useful even though there are no parameters to document.
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 verb 'Devuelve' (returns) and the resource 'datos verificables de los profesionales del equipo', listing specific data elements like colegiación, enfoques, modalidad, and who performs the initial assessment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on assessment info, services/prices, or 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 usage when professional credential data is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools. The sibling list suggests there are alternatives, but no direct comparison is made, so guidance is only implicit.
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 purpose: free assessment info, credentials, services/prices, and blog search. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Three tools use the get_ prefix and one uses search_, which is a minor deviation. However, the pattern is still consistent in style (snake_case, verb-first) and readable.
Four tools is slightly on the low side but appropriate for the narrow scope of providing information about a psychology practice. Each tool covers a key user need.
The core information surface is covered: assessment, professionals, services, and content. Minor gaps exist (e.g., contact info or FAQs) but are not likely to cause agent failure.
