Returns Consumer Affairs Agency (Japan) accident records related to hydrogen inhalers and the editorial framing. Use when the user asks about real-world safety incidents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds contextual detail about the data source (Consumer Affairs Agency) and that results include editorial framing, which goes 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and a precise usage trigger. 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, from where, and when to use it. Minor ambiguity around 'editorial framing' 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?
The only parameter 'lang' is not described anywhere, and schema description coverage is 0%. The enum ja/en implicitly signals language, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving default behavior or effect unstated.
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 names a specific resource (Consumer Affairs Agency accident records) and a specific scope (hydrogen inhalers, editorial framing), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_h2_papers or get_safety_notes.
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?
It provides an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks about real-world safety incidents.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is clearly stated and easy to apply.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but get_safety_notes overlaps with get_accident_cases and get_lineage since it aggregates those topics. Descriptions clarify the boundaries, so confusion is unlikely, but an agent might initially mis-select when asked about a specific safety aspect.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_* for retrieval, search_* for search). The consistent prefix and noun structure make the tool names predictable and easy to navigate.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a specialized literature database. Each tool covers a specific aspect of retrieval or safety guidance, and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool set covers the full read-only lifecycle: search, individual paper retrieval, safety detail views, accident cases, lineage, and aggregated topic views. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of querying molecular hydrogen medical literature.