get_microsite_infoIdentity and links for Psychiatry for Teens: 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?
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single article, listing, searching, citing, getting crisis resources, and getting site info. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, list_, search_, cite_). The style is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a content library, covering core retrieval operations without unnecessary bloat. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.
The set covers the main read-only workflows: listing, searching, retrieving, and citing articles, plus crisis and site info. Minor gaps exist, such as no category browsing or related-article suggestions, but these are not critical for the domain.