Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_invoiceC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'generate invoices' which implies a write operation, but does not clarify if this creates a persistent record, sends notifications, or has side effects like updating a database. It mentions 'through a REST API endpoint' but does not explain rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is too vague for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Quickly generate invoices through a REST API endpoint'. It is front-loaded with the core action ('generate invoices') and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, 'through a REST API endpoint' is somewhat redundant given the tool's context, slightly reducing conciseness.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity (20 parameters, 7 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a PDF, a confirmation, or an error), behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects, or high-level usage context. For a mutation tool with many parameters, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it correctly.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with detailed parameter explanations (e.g., mandatory fields, JSON format for 'services', default values). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description states the tool 'Quickly generate invoices through a REST API endpoint', which provides a clear verb ('generate') and resource ('invoices'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'generate' entails (e.g., creating a document, calculating totals, or storing data) and does not differentiate from siblings (though none exist). The phrase 'through a REST API endpoint' is redundant with the tool's context and adds little value.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., authentication), alternatives, or exclusions. It mentions 'Quickly' but this is vague and not actionable. Without sibling tools, differentiation is not needed, but basic usage context (e.g., for billing or documentation purposes) is missing.

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