Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• verify_passportA
  3.7/5.0
  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 the cryptographic check, expiry verification, return structure, and offline nature (no network required). No destructive or authorization hints are needed for a read-only verification 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?

  Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key details (checks, return, context). Perfectly sized.

  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?

  Missing details on failure behavior (throws error vs. returns invalid flag) and passport object structure. Simple tool but lacks completeness for an agent to construct the input correctly.

  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 coverage is 100% but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal description. The nested passport object lacks documentation of its required fields (e.g., signature, issuer), leaving the agent under-informed.

  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 action (verify a passport offline), specific checks (Ed25519 signature and expiry), and return value structure. It distinguishes from siblings (exchange_credentials, issue_passport) by emphasizing offline verification.

  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 for offline verification, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No prerequisites or constraints are provided beyond offline context.

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

• issue_passportA
  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 burden. It describes the passport (Ed25519-signed, 365-day validity) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or whether issuance stores the passport. Adequate but lacks depth.

  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, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, achieving optimal conciseness.

  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 4 parameters (0 required), no output schema, and nested objects, the description explains the passport's components and default validity. It is mostly complete, though could clarify post-issuance behavior (e.g., storage vs. return).

  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 75% (3 of 4 properties have descriptions). The description adds context about passport structure and default validity but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 issues a signed Agent Compliance Passport and explains its purpose. It distinguishes from siblings (exchange_credentials, verify_passport) by focusing on creation.

  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 (issuing passports) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like exchange_credentials or verify_passport. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

• exchange_credentialsA
  4.4/5.0
  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 involves negotiation, returns a token with intersection scope, and lists exact return fields. It does not explain potential failures or side effects, but the core behavior is well described.

  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 well-structured sentences. The first sentence explains the action, the second states the return format. No unnecessary words; every sentence provides essential 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?

  Given no output schema, the description compensates by specifying return fields. It covers the main use case but could mention prerequisites (e.g., having a valid passport) or error states. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool with two parameters.

  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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the negotiation process and output format, though it slightly implies both agents submit passports while the schema only expects one. This minor inconsistency is offset by the useful context.

  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 performs an A2A handshake where two agents exchange passports to negotiate a short-lived authorization token. It uses specific verbs ('present', 'negotiate') and resources ('passports', 'authorization token'), and the purpose is distinct from siblings issue_passport and verify_passport.

  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 implicitly indicates the tool is used when an agent needs to obtain a token from a counterparty based on passport verification. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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