Build a prefilled WhatDoTheyKnow request URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| authority_slug | Yes | ||
| default_letter | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| authority_slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'prefilled,' indicating the URL embeds query parameters, and 'request URL' implies no side effects beyond returning a string. This gives extra behavioral context beyond the 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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that communicates the core function without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, 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?
With 5 parameters and no parameter documentation or usage guidance, the tool is under-specified. The output schema exists but doesn't help the agent understand how to construct the URL or what each parameter does. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple optional parameters.
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 schema lists 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. The agent is left to infer the meaning of authority_slug, body, tags, title, and default_letter solely from their names, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 the specific verb 'Build' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'prefilled WhatDoTheyKnow request URL.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_request_record, which creates a record, and get_* tools that retrieve data.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for generating a URL link, but it doesn't mention the alternative of create_request_record for record creation or specify scenarios like 'when you need to share a pre-filled form link.' The usage context is only implied.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but get_user_feed_items and get_user_requests both surface user activity, and get_request_feed_items vs get_request_detail could be confused. Descriptions help differentiate them, but the overlap creates minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (build_, create_, get_, list_, search_, update_). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools are well-scoped for the domain, covering read, search, write, and feed operations without bloat. The prompts-related tools are ancillary but not excessive.
Core workflows are covered: authority lookup, request search/detail, user requests, creation, and state updates. Missing user detail or direct authority request list can be worked around with existing search and feed tools.