Get contact information for HealthCovered.org, a free service helping people find and enroll in ACA health insurance plans with maximum subsidies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explain what contact information is returned, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The added context about the organization does not address tool 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action immediately ('Get contact information') and then adds relevant context about HealthCovered.org. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequately complete. It communicates the primary purpose and provides organizational context. However, it does not elaborate on usage scenarios beyond the basic 'get contact info', leaving a slight gap in contextual guidance relative to its siblings.
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, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation. It adds no parameter-related details, but none 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 action ('Get contact information') and its specific resource ('HealthCovered.org'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (check_aca_eligibility, get_enrollment_dates) by focusing on contact details rather than eligibility or enrollment dates.
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 implies usage by indicating this tool is for contacting HealthCovered.org, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or named alternative tools, so guidance is only implicit.
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 distinct purpose: checking eligibility, getting enrollment dates, and obtaining contact info. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_aca_eligibility, get_enrollment_dates, get_healthcovered_contact. The 'get_' prefix is used consistently for two of them, and 'check_' for the third, which is a clear action verb.
Three tools is a well-scoped size for this server's purpose of providing ACA information and contact. Each tool addresses a core need: eligibility, timing, and human assistance.
The server covers the key questions users would have: eligibility, enrollment timing, and how to get help. A minor gap is the lack of a plan comparison tool, but the contact tool fills that need by directing users to human assistance.