list_insurersInsurance providers accepted by published facilities, with live facility counts — valid values for search_facilities' insurance filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| insurers | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe; the description adds that results include live facility counts and are limited to providers accepted by published facilities. This extra context goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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, dense sentence that conveys the tool's content and purpose without filler. It front-loads the main point and provides a practical usage note, earning every word.
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 an output schema present, return values are structurally documented. The description covers what the list represents and why it exists, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter reference tool. No gaps are apparent.
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 takes no parameters, so the description needn't elaborate on inputs. The schema confirms no parameters exist, and the description's mention of the filter values adds context beyond the empty schema, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 that this tool lists insurance providers accepted by published facilities, and adds that it includes live facility counts. It also frames the output as valid values for search_facilities' insurance filter, which distinguishes it from other list_* tools and clarifies its exact role.
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 explicitly indicates the primary use case: providing valid values for the insurance filter in search_facilities. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but this concrete integration point gives clear when-to-use guidance.
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 action and resource: search vs. get, experts vs. facilities, and enumerations for specific filter dimensions. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools like list_browse_categories and list_facility_types because their descriptions clearly differentiate scope.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get, list, or search followed by a clear object. No style mixing or vague verbs like 'process' or 'do_thing', making the set highly predictable.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range for a directory server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the workflow of understanding, browsing, and retrieving facilities/experts, without unnecessary bloat or an overly thin surface.
The set covers the full lifecycle of a directory lookup: understanding care levels, enumerating filter values, searching across two entity types, and retrieving full details. Missing operations like create/update/delete are not applicable for a read-only directory, so no critical gaps exist.