healthcovered-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the check action without disclosing side effects, whether it accesses external data, or whether the result is a final determination or estimate. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 two clear, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the purpose and immediately gives input instructions.

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 low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and both required inputs well. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that actual ACA eligibility may depend on additional factors such as Medicaid eligibility or minimum essential coverage.

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 input schema only provides integer types and titles, while the description adds key meaning: household size is 'number of people' and annual income is 'estimated... in dollars.' This compensates well for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 opens with 'Check if someone qualifies for ACA Marketplace health insurance subsidies in 2026,' providing a specific verb and resource with a clear time frame. This distinguishes it from sibling tools about enrollment dates and contact information.

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 instructs the user to 'Provide household size (number of people) and estimated annual household income in dollars,' establishing clear inputs and an eligibility-check context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It is a read-only getter, implied by the verb 'Get', but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it elaborate on the nature of the output (e.g., date ranges or trigger conditions). The 'Special Enrollment Period triggers' phrase hints at behavior but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise usage note. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose and usage context. It specifies the year (2026) and the two key data types (dates and SEP triggers), making it complete for the agent's decision-making. No additional return-value explanation is needed since an output schema exists.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the default baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; the schema is empty and the tool's operation is self-contained.

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 states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('ACA Open Enrollment dates and Special Enrollment Period triggers for 2026'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_aca_eligibility' and 'get_healthcovered_contact'. The addition of the year and SEP triggers makes the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use when a user asks when they can sign up or if they missed enrollment.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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.