Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• geocodeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that partial matches are allowed, returns up to 10 candidates, and uses the ReverseGeoJP API. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or the read-only nature, which are relevant but perhaps less critical for a simple lookup tool.

  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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key limitations (partial match, max 10). Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information.

  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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value: town district and lat/lon candidates, capped at 10. It could be more complete by mentioning coordinate format or failure behavior, but it covers the essential information needed to understand the tool's function.

  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?

  The schema already describes the sole parameter 'address' as '検索する住所文字列' (address string to search), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying that the address must be a Japanese string and supports partial matching, which goes beyond the generic schema description.

  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 the tool's function: converting a Japanese address string into candidate town districts (町丁目) with latitude/longitude, returning up to 10 results. It uses a specific verb '返します' (returns) and distinguishes from reverse_geocode by explicitly indicating direction from address to coordinates.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reverse_geocode or lookup_location. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the directionality implied by the name and title.

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

• reverse_geocodeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that results are based on the nearest point rather than boundary containment and mentions the underlying ReverseGeoJP API. However, it does not address failure cases, coordinate datum, result distance limits, or API error behavior.

  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 only two sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and includes a valuable caveat. Every phrase adds information; there is no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  Given there is no output schema, the description does list the essential return components (prefecture, municipality, town area, postal code) and highlights the nearest-point behavior. It lacks some edge-case details and explicit sibling differentiation, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple reverse-geocoding tool with two well-specified parameters.

  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?

  The input schema already provides full coverage for lat and lon, including ranges and brief Japanese labels. The description adds that these coordinates are used to find the nearest town address, but offers no extra detail about precision, units, or coordinate system, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

  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 the tool converts latitude/longitude into the nearest town-level Japanese address, listing specific components (prefecture, municipality, town area, postal code). This specific verb+resource statement distinguishes it from sibling tools like geocode, which handles the forward direction.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage (reverse geocoding from coordinates) via the title and the note about returning the nearest point rather than a boundary match. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like geocode or get_parcel, nor does it name alternative tools for forward geocoding or parcel-level lookup.

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

• lookup_locationA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that two independent APIs are called in parallel and integrated, and warns about the not_found behavior outside supported prefectures. It does not mention error handling or partial failure behavior, but the disclosed traits are valuable.

  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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding a crucial caveat. No wasted 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?

  The tool is moderately complex due to combining two APIs, and there is no output schema. While the description explains the parallel call and the not_found caveat, it does not describe the result structure or how partial failures are handled, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

  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 clear descriptions for both lat and lon. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema already does the heavy lifting.

  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 the tool's function: it looks up both an address (ReverseGeoJP) and a parcel number (ChibanJP) from latitude/longitude and combines them into one result. This distinguishes it from siblings like reverse_geocode and get_parcel, which handle each separately.

  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 implies this tool is the combined alternative to calling reverse_geocode and get_parcel separately, and it provides a key usage caveat about ChibanJP only supporting 8 prefectures. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over individual tools or provide exclusion criteria.

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

• get_parcelA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 reveals the underlying API (ChibanJP) and the critical limitation of only covering 8 prefectures, which is essential behavior. It also lists the output fields. It does not mention error behavior (e.g., if the point is outside the supported area or not in a parcel), but the disclosed scope is a significant transparency win.

  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 two sentences, with the primary action and return contents in the first sentence, and the API source and critical area limitation in the second. There is no filler, and every sentence earns its place.

  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 two-parameter lookup, the description provides the key context: what is returned, the data source, and the geographic limitation. It does not detail error handling or coordinate system, but the simplicity of the tool and complete parameter schema mitigate that need. It is slightly below a 5 because error behavior for out-of-area points is unspecified.

  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?

  The schema fully describes both parameters (lat and lon) with ranges and labels. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the guidance.

  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 returns the parcel number, 大字, city, and surveying accuracy for a point given lat/lon. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling geocoding tools by focusing on chiban data from the ChibanJP API.

  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 explicitly lists the eight supported prefectures, giving clear usage boundaries. However, it does not mention alternatives like reverse_geocode for general addresses or geocode for forward lookups, so it is not fully explicit about when to choose this over siblings.

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