Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_doctorsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return fields (id, name, specialty, clinic address) and the optional filtering behavior, though it does not mention pagination or result 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?

  The description is one sentence and conveys the core behavior, the optional filter, and the returned data in an efficient, front-loaded way. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

  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?

  For a simple read-only list operation, this description is complete: it states what is listed, how it can be filtered, and what fields are returned. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and there are no nested objects or complex outputs requiring additional explanation.

  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 already provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'specialty' parameter, including that it must be an exact specialty name from list_specialties. The description reinforces the optional narrowing concept but does not add significant meaning beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource (doctors), while also noting the optional narrowing by specialty. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools list_specialties and list_my_appointments, which target different resources.

  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 states that the tool can be narrowed by specialty and the schema parameter notes the exact specialty should come from list_specialties. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool, but the read-only listing context and sibling names make the intended use clear.

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

• list_specialtiesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it 'returns specialty names only' and that the scope is 'this clinic staffs.' This is sufficient for a simple list operation, though it does not discuss extra details like ordering or authorization.

  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 short sentences contain exactly the necessary information: the action, the resource, the scope, the return content, and the absence of arguments. There is no filler or repetition, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It states what is returned, the scope, and that no arguments are required. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

  The tool has zero parameters and the schema fully reflects that with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments.' Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and is fully satisfied.

  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 and resource: 'List the medical specialties this clinic staffs.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the siblings list_doctors and list_my_appointments by naming a distinct entity type. The scope is also explicit, so there is no ambiguity about what is listed.

  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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need the clinic's specialty names. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it. For a zero-parameter, self-contained list tool, the implication is fairly clear, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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

• list_my_appointmentsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already convey that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return fields (id, status, doctor, slot time), which is especially helpful given there is no output schema. It goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence with the action verb first, followed by the target resource and meaningful output details. No filler or redundant phrasing; every clause adds 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?

  For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description provides the essential context: ownership by the authenticated patient, the set of siblings it differs from, and the fields returned. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

  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?

  There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The description appropriately focuses on the resource and result shape, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

  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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('appointments belonging to the authenticated patient'), and the returned fields. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools list_specialties and list_doctors, which target different resources.

  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 provides clear context: this tool is scoped to the authenticated patient's appointments, which naturally separates it from the sibling tools listing specialties and doctors. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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