Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_emnerA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses approximate size and an example but does not specify return format, ordering, or pagination. Adequate but not rich.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, no redundant words. Front-loaded with main purpose. Efficient and clear.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives size, example, and usage hint. Missing return format, but overall complete enough.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with a good description. The tool description adds context about usage but no new parameter semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it lists StatFin subject areas, uses a specific verb 'List', and provides an example and size. It also differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning its use for scoping sok_tabell.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly tells when to use: to get a subject id for sok_tabell or to browse when a keyword search misses. No explicit when-not-to, but context is clear.

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

• sok_tabellA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it uses a bundled index and returns 'most relevant' results with tabell_id. However, it does not specify what happens on no results, whether results are ranked, or any limitations beyond 'Search English titles.'

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second explains the purpose and usage with sibling tools. No unnecessary words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description should detail the return format beyond just tabell_id. It does not mention whether titles, scores, or other fields are returned, leaving the agent uncertain about how to select among results.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context by linking 'emne' to list_emner and clarifying the query parameter's use, but much of the semantic information is already in the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it searches the StatFin database by keyword, returns relevant tables with tabell_id for use in hent_tabell/hent_data. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming them as consumers of the output.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explains the tool's unique local matching approach and that it is the only way to search (PxWeb has no server-side search). It names sibling tools, providing context for when to use this versus others, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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

• hent_dataA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses the API's size limit rejection behavior. It explains the structure of 'filtre' and special filters. Does not mention idempotency or side effects, but as a read operation, the critical behavioral trait (rejection at size limit) is covered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Description is concise: four sentences that front-load the purpose, then detail the key parameter with examples, and end with a critical constraint. No wordiness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Covers all parameters, special filter options, and a size constraint. Lacks an explicit description of the JSON-stat2 output structure, but given no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema covers 100% of parameters, but description adds significant meaning: example of 'filtre' mapping, explanation of 'lang' enum, and source of 'tabell_id'. The description enhances the schema with real usage patterns.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description starts with 'Fetch actual data values from a StatFin table as JSON-stat2', clearly stating the verb (fetch), resource (data values), and output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hent_tabell (metadata) and sok_tabell (search) by focusing on actual data retrieval.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit guidance: 'Omit filtre for the table's default selection' and 'Keep selections small — the API rejects queries over ~100 000 cells'. Special selections for 'top' and 'agg' are described. Could explicitly contrast with hent_tabell for metadata-only needs.

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

• hent_tabellA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description transparently explains the tool's output (metadata, title, dimensions, codes/labels). It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, this is acceptable.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is compact (two sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and free of extraneous information. Every sentence contributes value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, how to use it with sibling tools, and the language independence of codes. It is self-contained for a simple metadata retrieval tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a minor contextual note about language-independence of variable codes but does not significantly enhance the schema's parameter explanations.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it retrieves metadata for a StatFin table, listing specific elements (title, dimensions, value codes/labels). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by advising use before hent_data.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly tells when to use the tool (before hent_data) and provides guidance on variable codes being language-independent and how to pass them to hent_data.

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