Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• reverse_geocodeA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only says 'nearest known address' without detailing coverage, accuracy, or failure behavior. Missing info on search radius default and what happens if no address found.

  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 clear sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with core purpose, then optional parameter hint.

  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?

  Tool has 4 params and no output schema. Description does not explain return format or edge cases (e.g., no result). Lacks completeness despite good schema coverage.

  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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds 'Restrict to a specific country', repeating schema info. No new semantic value beyond 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?

  Clearly states verb 'convert' and resource 'latitude / longitude pair into address'. Distinct from siblings: geocode (forward), postcode_lookup, validate_address. Explicitly mentions country restriction.

  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?

  Implies usage for reverse geocoding but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., geocode for forward). Lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• geocodeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback hierarchy (rooftop to centroid) and the 'accuracy_type' output field, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not cover error handling or rate limits.

  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 fluff, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value.

  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 the complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains fallback logic but omits output structure (e.g., coordinate format) and possible accuracy_type values. While clear, it leaves gaps for an agent needing full behavioral details.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'country' described). The description adds no parameter-level details about street, house_number, etc., and does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions. Users get little guidance on which parameters are needed or optional.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Convert' and clearly identifies the resource: address to latitude+longitude. It differentiates from sibling tools like reverse_geocode, postcode_lookup, and validate_address by stating its core function.

  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 when an address needs geocoding, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reverse_geocode for coordinates to address). No usage exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• postcode_lookupA
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the input and output but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple lookup, this is sufficient but not exemplary.

  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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the conditional and lists the output comprehensively without any wasted words.

  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?

  The description covers the core functionality and lists the return fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It omits error handling and response format, but for a one-parameter tool this is reasonably complete.

  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%, and the parameter's schema already includes a description. The tool description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema—it simply restates 'Given a UK postcode'. Thus, baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: given a UK postcode, return delivery points from Royal Mail PAF. It uses specific verbs and lists the exact data returned (street, house number, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like geocode or validate_address.

  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 when to use the tool (when you have a UK postcode and want delivery points), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to siblings (geocode, reverse_geocode, validate_address). The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit differentiation.

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

• validate_addressA
  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 full burden. It discloses that the tool validates addresses against authoritative data and returns standardized addresses, rooftop coordinates, confidence levels, and UK-specific identifiers. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but overall behavior is well explained.

  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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then enumerate key return values. Every word adds value, with no repetition of schema information or unnecessary details.

  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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's scope (240+ countries), input alternatives, and expected outputs. It could be more complete by describing error conditions or confidence score interpretation, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

  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%, so each parameter already has a description. However, the description adds important context: it clarifies that 'input' can substitute fielded parameters and that 'state' is required for certain countries (USA, CAN, etc.), which is not evident from the schema alone.

  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 verb 'validate' and resource 'postal address', and distinguishes from sibling tools (geocode, postcode_lookup, reverse_geocode) by emphasizing validation against authoritative reference data and returning confidence scores and UK-specific IDs.

  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 the tool is for validation but does not explicitly guide when to use it over siblings like geocode or reverse_geocode. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the context of returning confidence scores hints at its validation purpose.

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