list_statesList every US state that has treatment facility data in this directory, with per-state facility counts. Returns an array of {state, stateAbbr, count}. Use as a first step when the user's location is unclear, or to discover where coverage exists before calling search_facilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds complementary value by disclosing the return shape ('array of {state, stateAbbr, count}') and the fact that it lists only states with data. No contradiction with 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 primary action, then return format, then use case. No filler words; every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description fully conveys the return format and intended usage context. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the output structure, which is the only relevant semantic detail. No parameter explanations are needed.
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 the tool's function: 'List every US state that has treatment facility data in this directory, with per-state facility counts.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every US state'), and the scope ('with per-state facility counts') distinguishes it from siblings like search_facilities and get_facility_detail.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use as a first step when the user's location is unclear, or to discover where coverage exists before calling search_facilities.' It also names the alternative tool (search_facilities), providing clear decision 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 has a clearly distinct purpose: searching facilities, getting facility details, listing states, and explaining treatment types. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_facility_detail, get_treatment_types, list_states, search_facilities. The verbs and nouns are clear and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a directory-based finder. Each tool earns its place, covering discovery, detailed lookup, domain definitions, and geographic coverage.
The toolset covers the full read-only lifecycle: users can discover states with data, search facilities by multiple criteria, retrieve full profiles, and understand treatment types. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.