A state's RHTP profile: award, lead agency, initiative summaries. response_format 'detailed' adds officials and the primary-document shelf. tier 'golden' = fidelity-verified; tier 'abstract' = integrity-verified but preliminary, attribute as such.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | state slug, e.g. 'oklahoma' | |
| response_format | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains output components and tier meanings, but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read operation, coverage is adequate but not detailed.
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 efficiently deliver all key information: resource identity, output components, and variant explanation. No wasted words.
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 no output schema, description outlines return fields and tier interpretations. Missing details like output structure (e.g., JSON object) or error conditions, but acceptable for a focused profile 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 has 50% coverage (state described). Description adds meaning to response_format param via example. Also explains tier concepts, adding context beyond schema.
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 identifies the resource as a state's RHTP profile with components like award, lead agency, initiative summaries. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., get_document) by specifying a state-level aggregate, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_programs, get_subinitiative_ledger). Does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
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 aspect: document metadata, state profiles, sub-initiative ledgers, deadlines, program search, and cryptographic verification. No overlapping purposes.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, verify_) in snake_case, with no deviations.
6 tools is well-scoped for a focused data-access server, covering key query operations without being excessive.
The tool set covers core data retrieval needs: documents, profiles, ledgers, deadlines, search, and verification. The references to follow-up tools indicate thoughtful integration.
