Swiss Health MCP Server

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 mentions the tool returns the 'Top 5' results, which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data freshness—important for a tool that queries insurance data.

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 concise and front-loaded with two clear sentences in German. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and output behavior without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format ('Top 5'), but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and error handling. With no annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for an AI agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 6 parameters (e.g., canton codes, age bands, franchise values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Findet die günstigsten Krankenkassen für ein bestimmtes Profil. Gibt die Top 5 zurück.' (Finds the cheapest health insurers for a specific profile. Returns the top 5.) It specifies the verb ('findet'), resource ('Krankenkassen'), and scope ('Top 5'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_insurers' or 'get_price_history'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_insurers' or 'get_price_history'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for its use.

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