library

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds supported style context (AMA, APA, Chicago). However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid slugs or the exact output format, which would go 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 compact sentences convey the core purpose and available styles without redundancy. The structure front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the citation styles supported. No additional behavioral detail is necessary for effective invocation.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, including the format enum and default value. The description only repeats supported styles without adding deeper semantic meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('formatted citation') with clear scope ('for a Psychiatry for Teens article'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_article or search_articles by clearly focusing on citation generation.

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 the tool is for obtaining citations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or include any exclusions. The use case is evident from context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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 agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds useful output details (title, body, author, reviewer, citations, metadata) but does not disclose error handling or rate limits. Given the read-only annotation, the additional context is moderate, 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 entire description is one efficient sentence: it front-loads the verb and resource, then lists expected return fields. Every clause adds value, and there is no repetition or extraneous detail.

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 read operation with a read-only annotation, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content. It could mention how to find the slug (via list_articles or search_articles), but sibling tools imply that. Missing error semantics is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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% because the only parameter 'slug' has a description ('Article slug'). The description reinforces 'by slug' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, 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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies a precise resource ('a single article from Psychiatry for Teens') with a clear lookup method ('by slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_articles and search_articles, which handle broader set operations.

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 phrase 'Fetch a single article... by slug' clearly implies use when a specific slug is known and full article content is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though sibling names provide implicit context.

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 include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the payload content (988/911/Crisis Text Line). It doesn't describe side effects, but none are needed for a read-only return. Credit for adding what the payload contains 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns and when to invoke it. The sibling tools are irrelevant, and the context is complete for an AI agent to select and call it appropriately.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true). No additional semantic value required.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload'), clearly distinguishing it from the article-related sibling tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' This is a clear, actionable usage guideline, and since no alternative crisis tool exists, it fully addresses when to use.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds detail about the content returned but does not disclose behavioral traits like response format or any limitations. It is consistent with the annotation and adds some value.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key information. Every element (resource name and specific content list) 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 simple read-only info tool with no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns: identity details and links. It is complete and gives the agent enough to understand the tool's purpose.

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 does not need to explain parameters, and the schema fully covers them (empty properties). No additional parameter info 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 clearly states the tool provides identity and links for a specific microsite, listing the exact contents (tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship, URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle articles, crisis resources, or searches.

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 the tool (when microsite info is needed) but does not explicitly state usage context or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation; the description adds that results are paginated and include specific fields (title, slug, summary, URL). This is useful behavioral context, though ordering and total-count behavior are not disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence that immediately states operation and scope. All words add value; no fluff. Front-loaded 'Paginated list' makes purpose clear.

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 low-complexity list tool with fully described optional parameters and a readOnly annotation, this description is adequate. It names the resource source and return fields, compensating for the lack of output schema. No critical gaps for invoking the 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 covers both page and limit with clear descriptions (1-indexed page, max results per page, default 30, max 100), so coverage is high. The description doesn't add parameter semantics beyond the pagination concept, but the schema handles it. Baseline 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?

Clearly identifies a paginated listing operation for articles from Psychiatry for Teens. The verb 'list' and resource 'articles' distinguish it from siblings like get_article and search_articles. Also describes returned fields, reinforcing 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?

Description implies use for browsing or fetching all articles in pages, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over search_articles or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The pagination hint provides limited context.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to re-state that. It adds useful return-field details and the 'matching articles' scope, but lacks additional behavioral context like pagination behavior, default limits, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return fields. Every word earns its place; 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 simple search tool with a good schema and read-only annotation, the description covers purpose, scope, and return fields. Missing guidance on sibling tool selection and default behaviors, but the schema covers parameter details, so the description is largely complete.

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 all three parameters (query, q, limit). The description adds minimal insight beyond confirming the primary query parameter; it does not meaningfully elaborate on the `limit` or `q` fields, so the baseline applies.

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 searches the editorial corpus by query and specifies the return fields (title, slug, summary, URL). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_articles or get_article, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'search' and the context of 'matching articles,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_articles. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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