Get full details for a single cancer support resource by ID, including locations, hours, and match criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| language | No | Language for returned text. Default: en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and states what is returned, but does not explicitly mention read-only nature, auth requirements, or error behavior.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded, no fluff.
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 the simple 2-parameter tool and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about the return content. It does not describe error handling or output structure, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema.
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 parameters with clear descriptions (id and language with enum and default). The description reinforces the id usage with 'by ID' but adds no additional semantic information beyond the 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?
Clearly states it retrieves full details for a single resource by ID, listing locations, hours, and match criteria. The verb 'Get' and resource scope distinguish it from siblings like search_resources.
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 the tool is for fetching a specific resource when the ID is known. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_resources for finding resources.
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 serves a distinct purpose: fetching details, listing categories, listing counties, and searching resources. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them, making it clear which tool to use for each step.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (get_resource, list_categories, list_counties, search_resources). The naming is predictable and uniform.
With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a resource directory. Each tool is essential and earns its place, providing a complete yet minimal interface.
The tool set covers the full user workflow: discover categories, find county names, search with filters, and retrieve full details. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of finding cancer support resources.